Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[john42t]

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

http://understanding...sciousness.html

Meaningless chart, I agree.

[Philip Coates]

> a naked pay for view mud wrestling contest. We could make money for the movement...Phil could be the naked referee. [Adam]

I would have to be paid a lot better than my current salary at OL to agree to this.

[Selene]

> a naked pay for view mud wrestling contest. We could make money for the movement...Phil could be the naked referee. [Adam]

I would have to be paid a lot better than my current salary at OL to agree to this.

Phil:

Perhaps you misunderstood, you would have to pay us, the promoters of the match, for the "exposure" on the pay for view event.

Adam

Capitalist Pig

[john42t]

Adam

Capitalist Pig

Now, that's the spirit.

[caroljane]

> a naked pay for view mud wrestling contest. We could make money for the movement...Phil could be the naked referee. [Adam]

I would have to be paid a lot better than my current salary at OL to agree to this.

Phil:

Perhaps you misunderstood, you would have to pay us, the promoters of the match, for the "exposure" on the pay for view event.

Adam

Capitalist Pig

Yet another of Adam's attempts to get Angela naked, this time cunningly disguised as a business proposition.

Well... the youth of Athens used to wrestle naked in the palaestra before trooping off to listen to Socrates. It might revive an interest in philosophy unrivalled since the Python soccer match.

[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.

The premise itself cannot serve as proof (this would be circular reasoning).

Example: "All of Ayn Rand's philosophical writings are true because [premise]: "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy".

It would therefore be fallacious to accept a thought system built on premises that go unchecked.

So let's check the premise: "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy".

What immedialely comes to mind is that "truth" is about statements, about propositions.

A statement is true if it corresponds to reality.

Since a philosophy is composed of many statements, to claim truth fo the whole philosophy would imply truth for all statements made there by the philosopher.

Since this is clearly not the case with Objectivism (nor is it for any other philosophy I can think of) - Rand was in error about several assertions she made, for example that "man is tabula rasa" - the premise "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy" collapses because it does not stand up to scrutiny.

Formulating one's premises can be quite tricky because they have to be made watertight. If they are not, down they go. Therefore it makes sense to build in modifiers, like e. g. saying "Philosophy X contains several truths".

Thus one avoids absolute claims, and the premise doesn't go down as a whole if some errors in the philosophy should be discovered.

[john42t]

Thus one avoids absolute claims, and the premise doesn't go down as a whole if some errors in the philosophy should be discovered.

I don't define Objectivism as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand".

That would be a definition by non-essentials. I define it as the one, true philosophy.

If I detect and correct errors, I don't leave Objectivism, I approach it.

The fact that this works in terms of communication obviously depends on Rand's excellence as a philosopher. [EDIT: Meaning: the two defintions lead to almost identical concepts - only very rarely (like in the discussion we're having right now) you will have to distinguish the two.]

I'm confident that this is a definition Rand would have approved of more than the former.

In the absence of neomystical corruption, there would be no need for the term "Objectivism": "philosophy" would suffice.

Since a philosophy is composed of many statements, to claim truth fo the whole philosophy would imply truth for all statements made there by the philosopher.

There is no such thing as "a" philosphy, any more than there is "a" mathematics. Maths is an integrated whole, so is philosophy.

Anything else is masturbation.

Rand was in error about several assertions she made, for example that "man is tabula rasa" - the premise "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy" collapses because it has been exposed as false.

Man's *rational faculty* is tabula rasa, I made a

about it.

If you disagree, name one *concept* (not instinct) that you believe is inate.

I hope your case is better than the "but I feel pain and I haven't learned that"-strawman, which is really cheap. As if Rand didn't know about that.

[Philip Coates]

> So let's check the premise: "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy". [Xray]

> I define it as the one, true philosophy. [john42t]

Guys, please don't hijack the thread onto the validity of the philosophy -- that will lead to endless back and forth posts and there are many threads on the merits of Objectivism itself.

(Or if you can't find one, you can easily create a new one.)

This thread is about -marketing and spreading and persuading the philosophy- for those who agree with it in whole or in large part. It's also about marketing complex ideas more broadly, including discussion of historical movements like Christianity.

I would -love- to hear from either of you your thoughts on spreading the philosophy, getting more people exposed to Rand, how that might be done in Germany (or elsewhere). For example, this would be fascinating:

Are there good German translations of Rand?

How did you get exposed to Rand or to Objectivism?

Have you had access to the non-fiction, the Peikoff courses, the NBI courses?

(Thanks.)

[john42t]

Guys, please don't hijack the thread onto the validity of the philosophy -- that will lead to endless back and forth posts and there are many threads on the merits of Objectivism itself.

Sorry about that.

I would -love- to hear from either of you your thoughts on spreading the philosophy, getting more people exposed to Rand, how that might be done in Germany (or elsewhere). For example, this would be fascinating:

A: Are there good German translations of Rand?

B: How did you get exposed to Rand or to Objectivism?

C: Have you had access to the non-fiction, the Peikoff courses, the NBI courses?

A:

There are old ones which are out of print. I don't know how good they are, but that "We, the living" has been translated with "undefeated by life" isn't a good sign.

B:

I was investigating the curious phenomenon of the Tea Party. People demonstrating for more capitalism seemed weird. I don't know for sure, but maybe the name Rand was on a sign or maybe I saw it on a related website. I rember some Randist's ranting in an article about how capitalism must not be justified on pragmatic grounds but only on moral grounds. That was so way out of anything I could categorize in my map of known ideologies that I got very curious. I like to understand how people tick, at least roughly, and being able to categorize them. The world around the Tea Party, the libertarians and especially Rand (who I believe greately contributed to the former) was entirely new to me. Austrian economics aren't known to Germans either.

C:

The first thing I read after quotations on the net was "Philosophy, who needs it." I can't tell you just how much of an impact it had on me. For a short while I was so completely alienated from others, I felt like a tragic hero in a zombie movie - and that was only the first little set of articles. I didn't went on a mission to convince everybody of Objectivism or something like that, in fact I barely mentioned it. But I tested people by asking questions about their premises. Rand turned out to be right - and believe me, I wished she was wrong. Many of them liked me only because, and only in so far, I pretended to be as immoral as them. All I considered good in me they considered evil. Not all of them, but family and many of those I considered my closest friends.

In a way I always knew it, but did not dare to draw conclusions. I didn't really need her ideas so much, I needed her courage and the knowledge that I'm not alone. That is one thing you can use for your quest for how to spread the word.

As to the rest, I'm familiar with some of the Objectivist movement and such by the biography "Goddess of the market" and various internet sources.

I'm not familiar with Peikoff's courses or the NBI courses and I'm very much in the dark about their quality. As of now, I don't see much reason to delve into those (maybe you have one?). There are still some pieces of Rand I haven't read (art of fiction, art of non-fiction and all the articles that are not in book form; also didn't read WTL yet) and of course there's always other stuff to do.

While we're at it, I don't have a very strong opinion about Peikoff, the ARI and related issues closed vs. open either. I read "Fact and Value" and "A Question of Sanction", but I'm not sure what to make of it all. It's very difficult and tedious to analyse these splits and there's little in it for me in doing so. I rather advance my knowledge in other fields.

I should say that the amount of disagreement I have with Rand is tiny and inconsequential, but it took me a long while to arrive there.

There's another tiny point I want to mention: Our disagreement about the American natives. I read Rand's statement relatively early in my discovery and agreed with it instantly. There's two things to this point: 1. The argument itself is non-trivial and the conclusion appears monsterous to the do-gooder (it makes him evil, after all). 2. The author seems to relish in the expected agony of the potential do-gooder. Rand provoked. That appeals to me and the do-gooder reaction made her more visible. If you want to spread the message, don't ally with do-gooders, don't engange in smooth-talking. That approach will only get you ignored.

[Philip Coates]

John, thanks for the detailed, systematic response. I can see that the legendary Germanic thoroughness is true in your case.

> that "We, the living" has been translated with "undefeated by life" isn't a good sign.

It certainly isn't - especially since every modern language presumably has a pronoun for 'we', a gerund form of the verb for state of being alive, and the ability to use a noun as an appositive.

> Austrian economics aren't known to Germans either.

Which is ironic since the language of origin was German and since Austria is right next door and in fact was once part of the German world. Many of the greatest Austrian, Ludwig von Mises's works had to be translated from German to English so it's sad that they are not known in their original language.

> It's very difficult and tedious to analyse these splits and there's little in it for me in doing so. I rather advance my knowledge in other fields.

You are right to spend your time more usefully.

> I'm not familiar with Peikoff's courses or the NBI courses and I'm very much in the dark about their quality. As of now, I don't see much reason to delve into those (maybe you have one?).

I just started a thread today on learning things in 'layers' or levels or stages. At a certain point when you have all the pieces of knowledge separately, the courses help you gain a new level of more systematic knowledge. I can't vouch for the NBI courses, they were before my time. But I've taken all the Peikoff courses which he gave up through the mid-80's and there is tremendous insight in them - not just about Objectivism but about many other areas of knowledge. I consider them invaluable.

[john42t]

> Austrian economics aren't known to Germans either.

Which is ironic since the language of origin was German and since Austria is right next door and in fact was once part of the German world. Many of the greatest Austrian, Ludwig von Mises's works had to be translated from German to English so it's sad that they are not known in their original language.

I believe Mises translated his work into English himself after he emigrated due to Europe's descending into collectivism. I have the English version of "The Theory of Money and Credit" in my shelf. It is is two chapters longer than the older German edition, but much, much less expensive. :-)

Austria was considered as German as anything, that's true. In fact the whole idea of Germany is a collectivist idea. Without collectivism, we still had the Prussian and Austrian monarchies plus many little kingdoms. About when the Zeitgeist changed to collectivism, during the 19th century, Germany's intellectual power wavered. It suffered severly with the unification, imploded totally with the advent of Nazism and has not yet recovered.

[EDIT: And of course the Austrians are not known in modern Austria either! From all I know about Austria, it's a good deal worse than Germany in terms of intellectual climate.]

But I've taken all the Peikoff courses which he gave up through the mid-80's and there is tremendous insight in them - not just about Objectivism but about many other areas of knowledge. I consider them invaluable.

If you have an example lecture you consider a good teaser, I'd be interested.

So far, Rand herself continues to surprise me. Lately I found that Rand wrote on Randroids! This lady just couldn't be more perfect.

[Brant Gaede]

Guys, please don't hijack the thread onto the validity of the philosophy -- that will lead to endless back and forth posts and there are many threads on the merits of Objectivism itself.

Sorry about that.

I would -love- to hear from either of you your thoughts on spreading the philosophy, getting more people exposed to Rand, how that might be done in Germany (or elsewhere). For example, this would be fascinating:

A: Are there good German translations of Rand?

B: How did you get exposed to Rand or to Objectivism?

C: Have you had access to the non-fiction, the Peikoff courses, the NBI courses?

A:

There are old ones which are out of print. I don't know how good they are, but that "We, the living" has been translated with "undefeated by life" isn't a good sign.

B:

I was investigating the curious phenomenon of the Tea Party. People demonstrating for more capitalism seemed weird. I don't know for sure, but maybe the name Rand was on a sign or maybe I saw it on a related website. I rember some Randist's ranting in an article about how capitalism must not be justified on pragmatic grounds but only on moral grounds. That was so way out of anything I could categorize in my map of known ideologies that I got very curious. I like to understand how people tick, at least roughly, and being able to categorize them. The world around the Tea Party, the libertarians and especially Rand (who I believe greately contributed to the former) was entirely new to me. Austrian economics aren't known to Germans either.

C:

The first thing I read after quotations on the net was "Philosophy, who needs it." I can't tell you just how much of an impact it had on me. For a short while I was so completely alienated from others, I felt like a tragic hero in a zombie movie - and that was only the first little set of articles. I didn't went on a mission to convince everybody of Objectivism or something like that, in fact I barely mentioned it. But I tested people by asking questions about their premises. Rand turned out to be right - and believe me, I wished she was wrong. Many of them liked me only because, and only in so far, I pretended to be as immoral as them. All I considered good in me they considered evil. Not all of them, but family and many of those I considered my closest friends.

In a way I always knew it, but did not dare to draw conclusions. I didn't really need her ideas so much, I needed her courage and the knowledge that I'm not alone. That is one thing you can use for your quest for how to spread the word.

As to the rest, I'm familiar with some of the Objectivist movement and such by the biography "Goddess of the market" and various internet sources.

I'm not familiar with Peikoff's courses or the NBI courses and I'm very much in the dark about their quality. As of now, I don't see much reason to delve into those (maybe you have one?). There are still some pieces of Rand I haven't read (art of fiction, art of non-fiction and all the articles that are not in book form; also didn't read WTL yet) and of course there's always other stuff to do.

While we're at it, I don't have a very strong opinion about Peikoff, the ARI and related issues closed vs. open either. I read "Fact and Value" and "A Question of Sanction", but I'm not sure what to make of it all. It's very difficult and tedious to analyse these splits and there's little in it for me in doing so. I rather advance my knowledge in other fields.

I should say that the amount of disagreement I have with Rand is tiny and inconsequential, but it took me a long while to arrive there.

There's another tiny point I want to mention: Our disagreement about the American natives. I read Rand's statement relatively early in my discovery and agreed with it instantly. There's two things to this point: 1. The argument itself is non-trivial and the conclusion appears monsterous to the do-gooder (it makes him evil, after all). 2. The author seems to relish in the expected agony of the potential do-gooder. Rand provoked. That appeals to me and the do-gooder reaction made her more visible. If you want to spread the message, don't ally with do-gooders, don't engange in smooth-talking. That approach will only get you ignored.

I must say it's hard to understand why someone who didn't "need her ideas so much" is going to be successful in spreading "the message," whatever that is. It's interesting that the deeper you got into Rand, whatever that means, the more you seem to be trapped there, wherever that is. But it's obviously natural enough that you and Phil have found each other. It's the triumph of teaching over the taught.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

I don't define Objectivism as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand".

That would be a definition by non-essentials. I define it as the one, true philosophy.

I suggest you give this talk by David Kelley a listen.

http://www.atlassoci...g-atlas-society

I'm not familiar with Peikoff's courses or the NBI courses and I'm very much in the dark about their quality. As of now, I don't see much reason to delve into those (maybe you have one?).

This program has Peikoff at his best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbYTnFcnvPE&feature=player_embedded

I believe Mises translated his work into English himself after he emigrated due to Europe's descending into collectivism.

He had to flee after the Anschluss. The “Austrian school” were all Jews, and none went back after the war.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't define Objectivism as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand".

That would be a definition by non-essentials. I define it as the one, true philosophy.

I suggest you give this talk by David Kelley a listen.

http://www.atlassoci...g-atlas-society

I'm not familiar with Peikoff's courses or the NBI courses and I'm very much in the dark about their quality. As of now, I don't see much reason to delve into those (maybe you have one?).

This program has Peikoff at his best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbYTnFcnvPE&feature=player_embedded

I believe Mises translated his work into English himself after he emigrated due to Europe's descending into collectivism.

He had to flee after the Anschluss. The “Austrian school” were all Jews, and none went back after the war.

Listen to that applause when Peikoff and Ridpath were introduced. Back then these guys could still pull in that large Ayn Rand-admiring audience. It was still like it was in NYC and NBI in the 1960s that way. Yes, that was Peikoff at his best and his best was very, very good. (Click on 5/14 on the sidebar 5-6 mins in.)

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Just dropping in to say I love this thread. It has it all --stars, star turns, learning leavened with wit, a spine with digressions, argument, discussion and squabbles, a few slurs -- and the occasional tang of invective. Religious poetry, drama and ethics, sustained inquiry, scrutiny and revision. We examine early Christian saints, the religious economy they were born into and the Walmart-like growth of their subsequent operation. We have Bible verses, moral admonishment and homework questions. We even have Objectivish drollery on the word cunt.

It is satisfying to me when everyone pitches in and the outline of the entire elephant eventually becomes quite distinct ... so I hope to hear from Steve and the other bright sparks, from the rest of the second tier, and then finally sum up proceedings with a dash of Barbara on the rocks . . . dare we invoke the name of J Neil Schulman,. so he may help us envision places we may not reach ourselves?

Phil, you have helped knit together the community, somehow. There is no cheque in the mail, no Paypal for you, so this time you will have to take payment in pleasure.

I offer you a religion, a religion called Objectivism, with a suggested all-purpose liturgy for all maner of Objectivist meetings, celebrations, memorials and endeavors, from arrivals through unions to departures. This is off the top of my head, having no idea of a liturgy more awful or more stirring.

Weigh in, Phil, summarize the thesis, squeeze the wine from your press, deliver us a hopeful liturgy for the church founded this day in Greater Sun Center.

Objectivists believe in Objectivism. It is a Total System. It can help you Answer All Questions. It can help you live Smart. It can help you deal with every single one of Life's Blows, but it promises you nothing, nothing at all, no love, no blessing, no mercies and no special exceptions. Objectivism offers you nothing but the fruit of the free human mind.

Objectivism offers you no gods, no saints, no churches, no holy book, no seers. It offers nothing but a mind, your own mind, your mind turned to reality to answer the first and final questions. Objectivism gives no afterlife, no heavenly blessings, nothing from a spirit world beyond.

Individual minds can solve real problems. Individual minds working in concert can solve real problems. Problems deserve sane, wise and rational solutions derived from reality.

Objectivism is the friend of every scientist, of every seeker, of every observer, for it wields the self-same tools humanity has accumulated to best test and master reality.

Objectivism reflects reality, the reality of every individual intelligence of the world. It says: seek the best and only the best, for each individual human being. It witnesses the best of humanity where it resides, in the actions and in the minds of each individual in the world, in the universe, in its entirety.

Objectivism lives and speaks both loud and quiet, in each individual's best actions, in each sober judgement and act of mercy, in each individual soul. It is wages for weary minds, insight for the puzzled, respite, rejuvenation and recompense for those in struggle. It is Dignity, Honour, Justice and Self-Respect.

Let us now take a moment to reflect in awe at the Human, at the unique power of human intelligence in the universe. Let us move forward proudly in time, in individual toil and individual leisure. Let us savour this life. Let us each strive to live the best life that we may, in each moment of each tomorrow, in each moment of the life we have woken to, in fullest understanding possible. For a moment, together bound by the glory of this Reality, let us bless the human who lives inside each one of us, let us honour the human and let us continue in this sense of spirit until we meet again.

[Selene]

I suggest you give this talk by David Kelley a listen.

http://www.atlassoci...g-atlas-society

ND:

Thank you very much. I was absent from this part of the movement. This speech by Dr. Kelley provided a critical understanding bridge for me. This was invaluable.

Quite an impressive speaker. Now I understand why my intellectual instinctive position was for the concept of an "open Objectivist position."

There was never a chance of accepting Peikoff's closed system which I knew in all it's malevalent, self-destructive and corrosive manifestations.

Once again, thanks for the link to Dr. Kelley's speech.

The virtue of rationality demands an open Objectivism.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Hi, Bill, welcome back, disrespect and all.

--Brant

at least it's highly entertaining

[Jonathan]

> So let's check the premise: "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy". [Xray]

> I define it as the one, true philosophy. [john42t]

Guys, please don't hijack the thread onto the validity of the philosophy -- that will lead to endless back and forth posts and there are many threads on the merits of Objectivism itself.

It's amusing that someone who claims to be so enthusiastic about "marketing and spreading and persuading" is so annoyed by the "endless back and forth" of marketing and spreading and persuading.

This thread is about -marketing and spreading and persuading the philosophy- for those who agree with it in whole or in large part. It's also about marketing complex ideas more broadly, including discussion of historical movements like Christianity.

I'd think that a person who is seriously interested in "marketing and spreading and persuading," and is not just dabbling and stupidly trying to impress others, would take some courses and seriously study modern marketing theories and techniques, and then find a job in the field and gain some real-life experience under seasoned professionals. I think that that would be much more effective than taking the Objectivist Schoolmarm approach of introspecting based on one's half-hearted interests, one's shallow level of knowledge, and one's lack of experience.

J

[Selene]

Marketing the Pet Rock, was not just "luck."

Part of Dahl's marketing strategy was to state that pet rocks give us more pleasure than we know. He convinced the consumer that these pet rocks support this argument through their very existence, and clearly display that it is not an actual item that brings joy to the child in the human mind, but merely the idea of the item. The pet sits in a niche in the mind, created by the power of the owners’ imaginations. It is in the actual exercise of the mind that such pleasure is found.

It is quite a valid point that finding such productive and effective uses of recreation time can be more preventative and beneficial to the health of our minds than even the most advanced psychological treatments. People who purchased these unusual "pets" often gave them names, talked to them, petted them, and attempted to teach them to perform simple "tricks".

Dahl's idea was simple, effective and highly successful similar to other fads such as the Hula Hoop and Cabbage Patch Kids. With the pet rocks resurgence comes inspiration to create the next multi-million dollar opportunity. As indicated by Dahl all that is needed is a good idea, a thorough plan, hard work, and good marketing.

http://www.petsdo.com/blog/pet-rock-made-man-multi-millionaire-6-months-lives

[PDS]

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: you are/were taking me too literally. To make a good story, every Valjean deserves a Javert, and vice versa. But, alas, perhaps I am taking you too literally...

As for Phil's use of the "C" word, I am going to go ahead and pull a little rank here: having defended hundreds of employment claims on behalf of employers throughout the country, I can assure you that the C-word is only one half of a notch worse than the N-word, according to judges and juries (and my wife...).

Phil should appreciate your generosity on this point, but that generosity is not warranted--not on this issue, at least.

[Selene]

PDS:

Absolutely correct on the impact of the "c" word on Judges, juries and sentient people generally. It has a special pleasurable use in the D/s, BDSM community, but that is by voluntary agreement.

I wanted to say that it is one half a "crotch" worse than the "n" word, but your point was to serious to make light of.

Adam

Post Script:

Cunt (/ˈkʌnt/) is a vulgarism, primarily referring to the female genitalia,^[1] specifically the vulva, and including the cleft of Venus. The earliest citation of this usage in the 1972 Oxford English Dictionary, c 1230, refers to the London street known as Gropecunt Lane. Scholar Germaine Greer has said that "it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock."^[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt

The word in its modern meaning is attested in Middle English. Proverbs of Hendyng, a manuscript from some time before 1325, includes the advice:^[9]

Ȝeue þi cunte to cunnig and craue affetir wedding.

(Give your cunt wisely and make (your) demands after the wedding.)

[Philip Coates]

> Just dropping in to say I love this thread. It has it all ...invective...drama and ethics...early Christian saints...homework questions.....Objectivish drollery on the word cunt. [WSS]

. . . Well, you know I'm just trying to keep you entertained, you c**t.

.... (oh the horror...!) .... #$%&*((^%@@!

[Brant Gaede]

> So let's check the premise: "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy". [Xray]

> I define it as the one, true philosophy. [john42t]

Guys, please don't hijack the thread onto the validity of the philosophy -- that will lead to endless back and forth posts and there are many threads on the merits of Objectivism itself.

It's amusing that someone who claims to be so enthusiastic about "marketing and spreading and persuading" is so annoyed by the "endless back and forth" of marketing and spreading and persuading.

This thread is about -marketing and spreading and persuading the philosophy- for those who agree with it in whole or in large part. It's also about marketing complex ideas more broadly, including discussion of historical movements like Christianity.

I'd think that a person who is seriously interested in "marketing and spreading and persuading," and is not just dabbling and stupidly trying to impress others, would take some courses and seriously study modern marketing theories and techniques, and then find a job in the field and gain some real-life experience under seasoned professionals. I think that that would be much more effective than taking the Objectivist Schoolmarm approach of introspecting based on one's half-hearted interests, one's shallow level of knowledge, and one's lack of experience.

J

While this is good advice as such, not using the actual ideas of the philosophy in this discussion begs the question of what everyone is actually talking about and is generally dis-empowering. I think the best way to "spread" Objectivism is to concentrate on individual rights or a subset issue. If I had had this idea 40 years ago, my life would have been much different. If Ayn Rand had had this idea 50 years ago the status of Objectivism today, intellectually and culturally, would be much, much stronger. Too much capitalism and not enough individualism. Capitalism has so much baggage it's like swimming with an anvil tied around your neck. That doesn't mean Objectivists should eschew the word and not champion that system, but it should be emphasized that that system is only the natural consequence--morally, politically, economically--of avoiding the initiation of force in human relationships and that this ideal is not the fascism of "crony capitalism" which seems to flow out of the legal corporate structure itself. By itself the corporate structure should only be a contract between private parties which limits liability amongst those parties but not respecting other parties, but I digress a little too much.

--Brant

[Xray]

Thus one avoids absolute claims, and the premise doesn't go down as a whole if some errors in the philosophy should be discovered.

I don't define Objectivism as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand". That would be a definition by non-essentials.

What I wrote in the above quote is independent of whether or not one defines a philosophy as the philosophy of its founder.

It is about what is stated in the primary primary text sources of a philosophy.

That would be a definition by non-essentials. I define it as the one, true philosophy.

This is not a definition but a personal value judgement voicing what this philosophy means to you. It's bit like saying "Jane is my one, true love, the most wonderful woman on earth."

If I detect and correct errors, I don't leave Objectivism, I approach it.

I actually like the term "Objectivism" for a philosophy. The term Objectivism places value on the factual. But my concept of an objectivist and rational philosophy would differ from Rand's in several points.

Since a philosophy is composed of many statements, to claim truth fo the whole philosophy would imply truth for all statements made there by the philosopher.

There is no such thing as "a" philosphy, any more than there is "a" mathematics. Maths is an integrated whole, so is philosophy.

When one speaks of "philosophy" without the indefinite article, it is used as a general term, as the general category When philosophy is used with an article or the genitive, it refers to a specific philosophy (like e. g. "The philosophy of Immanuel Kant", "William Occam's philosophy of nominalism").

Anything else is masturbation.

No, it it is differentiaton and precision, acknowledging the fact that several philosophies exist which one cannot not simply lump together.

[Jonathan]

I think that we should expand Phil's methods (of figuring out how to best "spread Objectivism") to other topics. For example, how might we discover the best way of becoming a helicopter pilot based on Phil's current knowledge and interests? As a child, did he put together a plastic model of a helicopter, has he flown a few kites during his life, and has he perhaps read a book about the Wright brothers? If so, what lessons can we learn from plastic models, kites and reading about the Wrights? Let's write essays about it, and think-outside-the-box our way to becoming helicopter pilots!

J