Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[anthony]

Subject: Are spreading a new philosophy or the founding of christianity topics of little interest? I'm curious why this thread seems to be dying, to be of very little real posting interest. By comparison to recent threads -- on politics and current events (Ron Paul, climategate), recipes, movies, peikoff, the atlas movie, atheism & philosophy & arguments. I've brought up a lot of points about how movements succeed, raised a lot of historical issues about religion for example. Are those issues of little interest to agree, disagree, expand upon? Are -my- posts poorly written or not thoughtful?

Phil,

My problem is I cannot correlate the two. Or the way both were/are spread - analogies yes, but there are very few practical strategies to take from Christianity to O'ism. Otherwise, it is clear you've done some thinking, and have expressed it well.

Tony

[john42t]

How might it apply to finding the most receptive audiences, finding what might be the most "fertile ground" for the victory of libertarianism or for the spread of Objectivism?

The most receptive audience for Objectivism appears to be adolescent boys, as is suggested by her biographer Jennifer Burns (and others I presume). I think the nerdy, alienated Objectivist youth is also a cliche.

I'm not convinced that Rand is ultimately always healthy for them (not conviced of the opposite either, just saying), but:

That's your receptive target group.

People who are happy in their job have no reason to make an effort. People who are unhappy in their job but believe they have nothing to offer will hate her.

It's people who are burning with dreams and ambition and are lost in confusion - most of them are adolescent boys.

A simpel idea would be to translate Rand in other languages (there is no German version of her books still in print).

More ambitious would be more of it, movies, series, etc that bring Objectivist ideas across.

Burns called Rand the "ultimate gateway drug to life on the right". You don't need a movement, you need more gateway drugs.

[Xray]

Subject: Are spreading a new philosophy or the founding of christianity topics of little interest?

I'm curious why this thread seems to be dying, to be of very little real posting interest. By comparison to recent threads -- on politics and current events (Ron Paul, climategate), recipes, movies, peikoff, the atlas movie, atheism & philosophy & arguments.

I've brought up a lot of points about how movements succeed, raised a lot of historical issues about religion for example. Are those issues of little interest to agree, disagree, expand upon? Are -my- posts poorly written or not thoughtful?

Imo modern man's willingness to accept philosophical closed-system "-isms" as a whole is petering out because of a constantly increasing awareness that life is infinitely more complex.

Correlated with this petering out is a rising reluctance by many to be "converted" to any "-ism".

[9thdoctor]

I'm curious why this thread seems to be dying, to be of very little real posting interest.

First your argument was shot down in flames, but you ignored that, didn’t answer critiques, and started your schoolmarming; surprise(!) the thread dies. Typically your threads, at least lately, have been schoolmarming from the outset, so, I imagine this thread represents an improvement.

[john42t]

Why's that?

I'd rather wait until Phil has made his full case, otherwise I'm going to prematurely derail his thread.

You mentioned Manichaeism. If Manichaeism had taken over rather than Christianity, would that be different? (I don't know anything about the religion.)

[anthony]

Imo modern man's willingness to accept philosophical closed-system "-isms" as a whole is petering out because of a constantly increasing awareness that life is infinitely more complex. Correlated with this petering out is a rising reluctance by many to be "converted" to any "-ism".

No, i don't think that is the reason - unless you mean that modern man is too intellectually lazy to stir his mind into action.

Where, oh where, are you going to find anything "infinitely more complex" than the highest concepts man knows?

Those very "isms".

Phil, here is the problem (or challenge) - the anti-intellectual Zeitgeist.

[9thdoctor]

You mentioned Manichaeism. If Manichaeism had taken over rather than Christianity, would that be different? (I don't know anything about the religion.)

Yes, I think so, but really I don’t know how to answer you. You say “taken over”, so, if Constantine had promoted Manichaeism, then his sons followed him by progressively outlawing other religions, leading to mass book burnings and the destruction of Roman culture, would the unique characteristics of Manichaeism have made a difference? A shorter Dark Age? I don’t see why. Alternately, if by "taken over", you mean accepted universally without being imposed by violence, this contradicts the thesis of Rand's Faith and Force talk, referenced earlier, and my point about the 4th century being more important than the 1st for understanding the "success" of Christianity.

[john42t]

Yes, I think so, but really I don’t know how to answer you. You say “taken over”, so, if Constantine had promoted Manichaeism, then his sons followed him by progressively outlawing other religions, leading to mass book burnings and the destruction of Roman culture, would the unique characteristics of Manichaeism have made a difference? A shorter Dark Age? I don’t see why. Alternately, if by "taken over", you mean accepted universally without being imposed by violence, this contradicts the thesis of Rand's Faith and Force talk, referenced earlier, and my point about the 4th century being more important than the 1st for understanding the "success" of Christianity.

I don't know. What are the unique characteristics of Manichaeism? The answer to that question should be crucial for the speculation about what would have happened.

I glanced at the Wikipedia article, but I couldn't find anything that allows me an easy categorization.

[Xray]

Imo modern man's willingness to accept philosophical closed-system "-isms" as a whole is petering out because of a constantly increasing awareness that life is infinitely more complex. Correlated with this petering out is a rising reluctance by many to be "converted" to any "-ism".

No, i don't think that is the reason - unless you mean that modern man is too intellectually lazy to stir his mind into action.

On the contrary, modern man is constantly reaching higher and higher stages of knowledge, and becoming more critical as a result.

Where, oh where, are you going to find anything "infinitely more complex" than the highest concepts man knows?

Life itself can be infinitely more complex than the highest concepts we can form. For our language is often quite limited when it comes to applying audiovisual symbols (terms) representing a concept. Hence the problems with so-called fudge words like 'love', 'freedom', 'justice' etc.

Phil, here's the problem (or challenge) - this anti-intellectual Zeitgeist.

Claiming intellectuality for one's preferred philosophy does not automatically make other approaches anti-intellectual.

The same goes for claiming rationality.

[john42t]

For our language is often quite limited when it comes to applying audiovisual symbols (terms) representing a concept. Hence the problems with so-called fudge words like 'love', 'freedom', 'justice' etc.

I have no problems understanding Rand when she's using these words.

Rational people can agree on definitions.

[9thdoctor]

What are the unique characteristics of Manichaeism? The answer to that question should be crucial for the speculation about what would have happened.

I don't have time right now (it's Thanksgiving here in the US) and may not have much time for the rest of the weekend. Manichaeism was similar to Zoroastrianism in terms of the conflict between good and evil. In Christianity if you're good you go to heaven, evil hell. Zoroastrianism has a cosmic conflict, and you have to take a side, and evil can win, meaning the cosmos can go to hell, and you're part of making sure it doesn't (or does).

[Xray]

For our language is often quite limited when it comes to applying audiovisual symbols (terms) representing a concept. Hence the problems with so-called fudge words like 'love', 'freedom', 'justice' etc.

I have no problems understanding Rand when she's using these words.

Rational people can agree on definitions.

Rational people can also agree to disagree on definitions.

Failing to understand what a philosopher means by using a specific term is not the problem. But in case oneself does not use the philosopher's term in that specific way, this has to be made clear.

For example, I would not speak of a criminal offender as a "selfless" indidvidual (nor would anyone during a courtroom trial call him/her that either I assume), but in Objectivist terminology, the offender would be called just that: self-less.

Applying a philosopher's terminology in 'real life' situations can lead to misunderstandings in communication if the philosopher's meaning attributed to a term deviates strongly from that of the accepted meaning of a term.

But the root issue it is not about definitions. Instead it is about the premises the definitions stand for, and it is these premises that are to be checked.

[john42t]

What are the unique characteristics of Manichaeism? The answer to that question should be crucial for the speculation about what would have happened.

I don't have time right now (it's Thanksgiving here in the US) and may not have much time for the rest of the weekend. Manichaeism was similar to Zoroastrianism in terms of the conflict between good and evil. In Christianity if you're good you go to heaven, evil hell. Zoroastrianism has a cosmic conflict, and you have to take a side, and evil can win, meaning the cosmos can go to hell, and you're part of making sure it doesn't (or does).

Could be better. It would depend a lot on what is considered the good.

What has been their stance on ursury and what social group was attracted to the ideology? Those are the first questions I ask to figure out how to classify it

Unfortunately, it's difficult with ancient ideologies where I lack the frame of reference.

Take any time you need, but if you could elaborate on this or the religion's content, I'm interested.

[Philip Coates]

> your argument was shot down in flames [ND, #154]

Really?

Which argument was that? -- All the points I made on a range of subjects? Mention of historical events? Allusions to Objectivism and libertarianism and their record?

(Couldn't be that you're exaggerating or distorting just a tiny bit, because you're harboring a grudge, could it?)

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Is even considering the possibility there might be lessons from the history of Christianity a total waste of time?

> Are spreading a new philosophy or the founding of Christianity topics of little interest? [me]

> Phil, My problem is I cannot correlate the two. Or the way both were/are spread - analogies yes, but there are very few practical strategies to take from Christianity to O'ism. [whynot / tony]

Tony, one of the points I'm still in the process of making is that lessons from how Christianity triumphed are not just about how to spread mysticism, belief in the supernatural, another life, and altruism. Those are issues of ideological content. Even if you don't agree with the content, there may be lessons from method or approach or venue or tactics or salesmanship:

Two examples: i) Demographics: What types of audiences are open to having their old ideas replaced?...Is it the young, the old, the poor, the prosperous, the elites, the dispossessed, the well-educated, the scientists, the artists, the liberal, the conservative? ii) Geography: what parts of the world are hungry, dissatisfied, want something new? -- one point I'm going to make is that "going global", as was done by following the 'diaspora' has lessons for us today. Even though it obviously wouldn't be done in the same way Paul did it (following and speaking to the Jewish communities).

Also, there are a third major issue or reason to study someone else's succcess: iii) related to -how- you approach, how you get someone's ear are issues of communication and persuasion, which the christians were and are very good at, can be used to spread all kinds of messages and ideas. Issues of -marketing- which have wide applicability.

The twin issue of -translation-: i) into different media (pamphlets as well as books, audio-visual, oral vs. written, 'workshops' and seminars...) [that one didn't much apply in ancient times as there were few media choices - but there were synagogue and other meetings, there were letters to groups - Paul's enormously influential epistles, there was the collection of the former into books, person to person persuasion], ii) into all the existing or key languages.

There is also the fact that just because it's a religion, it does not follow that all of their content, of what they had to offer that attracted people - and still does, was irrational:

For example, the worth and importance of the individual "conscience", being willing to stand against the state in one's beliefs. Having another venue, another source of community, a rallying point outside oft the all-powerful state. The Christians also provided some services and knowledge, especially in parlous times (the monks, farming skills, books, etc.) Being able to provide knowledge is something Oists can offer. Knowledge even above and beyond the philosophy itself. They also offered a sense of community (something quarreling and backbiting Oists could learn from.)

There is much more to say on this.

I just want to suggest that it is shortsighted to say that just because Christianity is a religion, it doesn't follow that there is absolutely nothing we could learn from their success. Both in the first century (the topic of this thread) or later (threads I probably won't start if people blow off the importance of this one.)I

I hope you will keep an open mind as you read my posts.

[Philip Coates]

There is also the issue of in what order to take up topics. "Blunt force trauma"/confrontation/denounce everything you've ever believed or gradualism/gain a foothold. There are lessons from the early (and later) Christians on this, obviously, as they sought a foothold in the pagan world or jewish world.

There's also something we could learn from how they aimed at those who had some similarities in belief or who could be expected to be sympathetic enough to at least sit still long enough to give them a hearing.

And how you present something in a sympathetic or patient or friendly way - the way a minister or pastor is trained to do.

Objectivists often don't seem to even attempt to learn from -any- of this.

[anthony]

There is also the issue of in what order to take up topics. "Blunt force trauma"/confrontation/denounce everything you've ever believed or gradualism/gain a foothold. There are lessons from the early (and later) Christians on this, obviously, as they sought a foothold in the pagan world or jewish world. There's also something we could learn from how they aimed at those who had some similarities in belief or who could be expected to be sympathetic enough to at least sit still long enough to give them a hearing. And how you present something in a sympathetic or patient or friendly way - the way a minister or pastor is trained to do. Objectivists often don't seem to even attempt to learn from -any- of this.

Phil,

Maybe we should back up a few steps. Two questions have to be asked first : Why philosophy? Why Objectivism?

I'm sure I don't have a pessimistic view of people, but it's not an over-positive, idealistic one, either - which affects my statements here.

It just seems to me that all of us - no idea how or why - have an evasive element, partnered with a truth-seeking one.

It is the proportions that matter.

I >think< from reading O'ists on the forums and from my own experience, that each and every Objectivist was always predisposed to truth, more than evasion - fundamentally - before even reading Rand. (After continuing to study her, the 'reality component' is encouraged to grow far larger.)

Put another way, the hunger for truth outweighs the instinctive dread of reality in such individuals. [edit: of course I no way negate volition in all this, though it does push it back to a chicken or egg situation.]

You get my meaning, Objectivists (or philosophers) were 'sold' on O'ism (or philosophy) well before they came across it!

Christianity, on the other hand, offered the early converts a shrewdly balanced fare of practicality and unreality - life, and eternal bliss.

You can eat your cake, and still have it. It catered to just enough of men's reason to seem real, but permitted their evasions as well. Comparative to Statism and cradle to grave security - but much more - it lessened men's responsibility to think.

Start with a gentle man brutally martyred for all mankind, add severe opposition to Christianity by the authorities, (the 'us' Vs. 'them' syndrome, so the appeal to the rebellious side in men) - an underground movement forms, with all its cohesive camaraderie - and you have a winner. Perfect marketing.

If my assessment of human nature, its rationality, and hunger for truth, is as fickle, but realistic as I believe it is, I would conclude that there are a limited number of Objectivists out there ready to be "converted". Frankly, if it were necessary to 'persuade' new Objectivists >beyond a reasonable degree< I would tend to question their certainty, anyway.

Maybe all that's left is to introduce people to it and wait and see.

Tony

[9thdoctor]

> your argument was shot down in flames [ND, #154]

Really?

Which argument was that? -- All the points I made on a range of subjects? Mention of historical events? Allusions to Objectivism and libertarianism and their record?

Anything to do with the “success” of Christianity being relevant to the future of Objectivism or Libertarianism.

(Couldn't be that you're exaggerating or distorting just a tiny bit, because you're harboring a grudge, could it?)

You would know all about that. Mais glissons.

Take any time you need, but if you could elaborate on this or the religion's content, I'm interested.

I don’t see how it could possibly be relevant to this thread. Manichaeism was supressed, and it’s not coming back. Their texts were destroyed, though some of them were rediscovered within the last hundred years. I don’t know if their views on things like usury have survived.

It is interesting, though, to line up the timeline of the Theodosian code with the biography of St. Augustine. His conversion away from Manichaeism seems about as convenient as the Mormon Elder’s revelation about blacks not being inferior. Another Elmer Gantry? Maybe not, but we only have his word for it.

[Brant Gaede]

Who needs Objectivism? Rational, critical thinking and individual rights--freedom. That is what is mostly needed. Objectivism is really all about the ethics. The main purpose of the ethics is to buttress the morality inherent in individual rights and better make for personal happiness by denying any moral underpinning to any form of tyranny, which hides behind altruism and self-sacrifice. But Objectivism, while denying altruism to tyranny denies it too to itself by denying its common meanings on the personal level with special understandings. Consider rational self interest as the basic ethical platform for a rational human being congruent with freedom. Off this platform someone may act seemingly in an altruistic way but without any compulsion but the nature of his own psychology. There are too many "shoulds" in Objectivism for Objectivists to well justify, true as they may be, considering their ignorance of human psychology including their own. The "shoulds" should come from within a person, not from without, from individual understanding from reason not from a cult headed by you-know-whoms. This makes all its formal teachers suspect and today, in light of human and its own history, unwanted and ineffective. People learn, they are not significantly taught, unless they go looking for it to learn something. Who's knocking on the door?

--Brant

if altruism wasn't attractive and extremely important to people tyrants wouldn't try to use it to justify their tyranny

[Brant Gaede]

If you want to teach philosophy teach reality, reason and critical thinking and watch the philosophical bull shit fall away. Most philosophy is just that--bull shit in nice clothes. Elegant expositions that feed on themselves making no sense outside the room. If a philosophy cannot talk directly to science and the scientific method--at least not contradict it--it's only for (some) philosophers and the extant so-called profession generally. Objectivism does talk directly to science, but doesn't say much to it. The basic axiomatic principles, though, are common. Now libertarianism doesn't talk to science directly at all nor does it embrace basic philosophical principles or ethics beyond what is naturally found in the politics. In this sense libertarianism and Objectivism need each other, but there's no need to make ethics a battleground. If you accept the basic principles of Objectivism--reality, reason, rational self-interest and individual rights--that's enough to be both an Objectivist and a libertarian. It is important to understand that laissez faire capitalism, not crony-fascistic capitalism (mixed economy), naturally enough results from that but that is not the compulsion or goal as such. Individual rights, liberty and freedom are.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> " all of us..have an evasive element, partnered with a truth-seeking one. It is the proportions that matter....Objectivists (or philosophers) were 'sold' on O'ism (or philosophy) well before they came across it...!...human nature, its rationality, and hunger for truth, is..fickle " [Tony]

I don't think you can generalize about people that broadly.

For example, it depends a lot on age (younger people have less to 'unlearn' and are far more open). It depends also on your surroundings In parts of the world where the system has collapsed or is not working, where the churches are oppressive, where the state is corrupt or your enemy, people are much more open to considering new ideas.

The whole point is to figure out -who- is the most open, -where- the larger concentrations are, and -how- to target them. Don't let past failures in spreading libertarian ideas or Objectivism convince you that people are "no damn good", are evaders, aren't open. The reason it hasn't spread is because it has not always been done properly. Or aimed at the most receptive.

(There is some tendency for people who have been around a while to say with some cynicism or world-weary resignation, "well, I've been unable to change people's minds so it can't be done", instead of thinking that perhaps they had more to learn about choosing who, what, when, and where and more to learn about the art of persuasion.)

> " I would conclude that there are a limited number of Objectivists out there ready to be 'converted'. "

Who said that everyone has to become an Objectivist? It is energetic minorities that determine the course of the future.

[Philip Coates]

PS, I wouldn't always use the word "conversion" as a goal or a measure of success. It's too strong and has too much of a religious tone. Sounds too formidable as a goal.

"Persuasion, influence, respect for the ideas, willingness to hear more" are more realistic goals or at least achievable with greater numbers of people (including the gatekeepers and intellectuals in a culture.)

[Philip Coates]

> Anything to do with the “success” of Christianity being relevant to the future of Objectivism or Libertarianism. [ND]

I see, and you claim that that has been totally refuted, "shot down in flames": All you have to do then is quote the single strongest statement or paragraph. NOTE that you can't squeak out of it by saying: "go and hunt through entire posts.".."well, it's in there somewhere."

That would be because you are unable to present or summarize the rebuttal in a single statement or paragraph.]

Can't do it or won't? Won't retract your claim?

. . . I didn't think so.

[anthony]

PS, I wouldn't always use the word "conversion" as a goal or a measure of success. It's too strong and has too much of a religious tone. Sounds too formidable as a goal. "Persuasion, influence, respect for the ideas, willingness to hear more" are more realistic goals or at least achievable with greater numbers of people (including the gatekeepers and intellectuals in a culture.)

I would never use "conversion" outside of here.

It isn't true, to your or anyone's purposes, and just provides fuel for detractors of the philosophy.

To me, it is an insider joke, like our having a "Pope."

[Philip Coates]

Tony, I understand.

I'm not just addressing you, however, but anyone who has thought about or tried to 'convert' people to Objectivism. Sometimes having too ambitious a goal like that, if only just using the concept subconsciously as a primary goal, can be demoralizing when it's not achieved. (My goal in one-on-one conversations often is just to plant a seed and in starting Oist clubs was just to move people a step or two further along a very long path.) Similarly, my goal in this thread is to lay out - in part for myself as I put it in writing - some ways Oism could do a better job of persuasion. I don't have to convert the members of this list to the idea that one needs to emulate tactics x, y, and z of religious persuaders. Nor does this particular audience (retired people, people not in leadership positions, newbies, people who no longer consider themselves Objectivists) seem very oriented toward taking up vigorous activism. I also suspect TAS and ARI people are not breathlessly waiting in suspense for those not in their inner circle to offer ideas and constructive criticism of their tactics. So my goal is not realistically to "convert" them, either.