Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[Jonathan]

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.

That's right. No one is interested in "taking up vigorous activism" if it means following your advice while you don't follow it yourself, and while you sit on your ass dabbling in your next intellectual distraction upon which you will base your next idiotic strategy by which you expect others to "spread Objectivism" while you sit on your ass dabbling in yet another intellectual distraction...

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.

I don't think that they're so much opposed to constructive criticism from outside sources as they're opposed to ignorant criticism from schoolmarms who have achieved nothing.

So my goal is not realistically to "convert" them, either.

Yes, we know what your goal is: To puff yourself up and to presume to offer advice to people who are vastly superior to you in every way, and to busy yourself with distractions so as to avoid any real work while pretending to be accomplishing something. Your goal is to try to make your inaction look like action, to make your ignorance and inexperience look like expertise, and to make your laziness look like achievement.

J

[George H. Smith]

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.

You are exaggerating the lessons that can be learned from early Christianity. Christian missionaries, such as Paul, didn't just go out and persuade people. Essential to their success was the establishment of churches and hierarchical authorities within those churches. Also key was the establishment of canonical texts, which then carried the absolute certainty of divine authority. So unless you can come up the institutional equivalent of "churches" for O'ists, and something equivalent to divinely inspired texts, parallels between early Christianity and modern O'ism will be superficial at best.

A much better precedent would be to explore the success of Marxism in the early 20th century. For one thing, Lenin -- the Peikoff of Marxism, so to speak -- wrote extensively on strategic issues, most notably in What is to be Done? There you will find discussions of how an ideological movement will become diluted and corrupted as uneducated masses become involved, and how an elite, well-informed "vanguard" is therefore needed to prevent "deviationism" -- or what you called "degeneration."

Ghs

[john42t]

[...]

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.

I agree with this posting completely, it explains very well what I meant to bring up or twice in this thread.

I would also add that part of this effect is due to the individuals circumstance: It's less difficult to convince somebody that capitalism is good when he desires to show everyone what he's up to, it's more difficult if that person feels impotent.

[PDS]

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.

You are exaggerating the lessons that can be learned from early Christianity. Christian missionaries, such as Paul, didn't just go out and persuade people. Essential to their success was the establishment of churches and hierarchical authorities within those churches. Also key was the establishment of canonical texts, which then carried the absolute certainty of divine authority. So unless you can come up the institutional equivalent of "churches" for O'ists, and something equivalent to divinely inspired texts, parallels between early Christianity and modern O'ism will be superficial at best.

A much better precedent would be to explore the success of Marxism in the early 20th century. For one thing, Lenin -- the Peikoff of Marxism, so to speak -- wrote extensively on strategic issues, most notably in What is to be Done? There you will find discussions of how an ideological movement will become diluted and corrupted as uneducated masses become involved, and how an elite, well-informed "vanguard" is therefore needed to prevent "deviationism" -- or what you called "degeneration."

Ghs

Now this would be highly interesting. I anxiously await Phil's analysis of these ominous parallels.

[Philip Coates]

> Christian missionaries, such as Paul, didn't just go out and persuade people. Essential to their success was the establishment of churches and hierarchical authorities within those churches. Also key was the establishment of canonical texts [GHS]

I agree in part, even more so once they became established and churches actually existed and the scriptures had been whipped into shape. Less so in the earliest century -- the 'founding' period of this thread and which my extensive quotes from Davies relate to, with the crucial exception that, not yet having developed their own venues, respected institutions, they were often allowed -access- to a key institution: they were allowed into the synagogues, to talk up their views, and attempt to persuade Jews and Gentile hangers-on there.

Lessons can also be learned from the Marxists and several other movements. And from later on in the 2000-year history of Christianity. And from other religions, and other secular movements. But, there's a lot that still has not been said about Christianity and even about "the first Christians" and I'm going to do one thing at a time.

(The best lessons and the ones that work for a philosophy of reason are the non-authoritarian ones.)

[George H. Smith]

> Christian missionaries, such as Paul, didn't just go out and persuade people. Essential to their success was the establishment of churches and hierarchical authorities within those churches. Also key was the establishment of canonical texts [GHS] I agree in part, even more so once they became established and churches actually existed and the scriptures had been whipped into shape. Less so in the earliest century -- the 'founding' period of this thread and which my extensive quotes from Davies relate to, with the crucial exception that, not yet having developed their own venues, respected institutions, they were often allowed -access- to a key institution: they were allowed into the synagogues, to talk up their views, and attempt to persuade Jews and Gentile hangers-on there. Lessons can also be learned from the Marxists and several other movements. And from later on in the 2000-year history of Christianity. And from other religions, and other secular movements. But, I'm going to do one thing at a time. (The best lessons and the ones that work for a philosophy of reason are the non-authoritarian ones.)

I really don't understand what you attempting to accomplish with a grand strategy. This is especially problematic when dealing with a philosophy that stresses individualism. O'ists vary in their strengths and weaknesses, as well as in their specialized skills. Some are good speakers, some are not. Some are good teachers, some are not. Some are good writers, some are not. Some have good polemical skills, some do not. And so on. In the final analysis, all we can do is to encourge O'ist types to utilize their particular skills to spread the word.

I have always encourged O'ist types to strive for excellence in their chosen fields -- whether this be business, art, writing, teaching, or whatever. Such excellence will command respect among one's peers, and with respect comes the likelihood of being taken seriously. Getting other people interested in O'ism is frequently an unintended consequence of the personal quest for excellence.

What do you realistically expect to happen, even if you do unlock the secrets of early Christianity or some other successful movement? Surely you don't think O'ists will flock to your standard and march in lockstep under your strategic banner. Many O'ists, consistent with the teachings of the O'ist ethics, simply want to be left alone to live their own lives as they see fit. They will have no desire to become missionaries, in effect, nor is there any reason they should. If you point out that the political/economic system is becoming unbearable, they will probably agree, in which case they might become politically active on some level. Fine, but you cannot spread an entire philosophy -- O'ism, in this case -- through political campaigns.

You should not overlook or bypass the crucial fact that the incentive of early Christians was to save the souls of other people. Even if you argue that this has a secular parallel -- say, helping other people live rational lives -- you will have a tough time motivating a bunch of egoists and individualists to sacrifice their time, labor, and money for the benefit of others. You might as well devise a strategy for herding cats.

Ghs

[caroljane]

George and Phil are both on point here. To spread and grow the movement, the infrastructure of churches had to be established. But first enough people had to be persuaded, and stay persuaded. That is what happened with the first two generations of evangelists, who personally transmitted a revolutionary message - not only to the monotheists who might be more receptive, but stunningly, to the pagans who had to renounce an entire worldview and culture (it was the pagan intellectuals who saw most clearly how Christianity would destroy the classical world).

In the beginning it was the message itself which mattered , Personally I do not think Objectivism could duplicate this feat, for a variety of reasons. One of these is that the message, in the 21st century, is just not revolutionary enough. It does not offer a "new heaven and a new earth". Jesus' only real commandment to his followers was "Lo ve 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, the Gnostics got quite carried away with it.

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. Persuasion and devotion to an ideal will always contain an element of the irrational.

[john42t]

You should not overlook or bypass the crucial fact that the incentive of early Christians was to save the souls of other people.

That's fascinating.

How strong was that aspect and what are your sources?

[George H. Smith]

You should not overlook or bypass the crucial fact that the incentive of early Christians was to save the souls of other people.

That's fascinating. How strong was that aspect and what are your sources?

I was speaking of Christian missionaries. Winning souls to Christ has always been a primary motive of Christian activists.

Ghs

[caroljane]

Offtopic, but as to religions Ba'hai is one of the best. Anyone seen the amazing new Lotus Temple in India (architect a Canadian)?

Carol

getting over the flu and feeling grateful for more than own immune system

[john42t]

I was speaking of Christian missionaries. Winning souls to Christ has always been a primary motive of Christian activists.

Right. Of course that's a very obvious characteristic I didn't really think of.

My curiosity is whether the early Christian belief was fundamentally about the concern of the souls of others, not only for missionaries, but every believer.

There is at least some collectivist trait in early Christianity, but I don't know how far it went and whether it's actually rooted in theology or merely a practical consequence of an irrational ideology.

[Selene]

We all need to remember that what we know about Jesus Christ was presented to us by his marketing team, the Apostles and their progeny...

[George H. Smith]

George and Phil are both on point here. To spread and grow the movement, the infrastructure of churches had to be established. But first enough people had to be persuaded, and stay persuaded. That is what happened with the first two generations of evangelists, who personally transmitted a revolutionary message - not only to the monotheists who might be more receptive, but stunningly, to the pagans who had to renounce an entire worldview and culture (it was the pagan intellectuals who saw most clearly how Christianity would destroy the classical world).

Christianity started as a reform movement within Judaism, so it had an institutional foundation from the very beginning, most notably the Greek speaking synagogues in Jersusalem.

Christianity also had a hierarchical structure of authority from its inception. Peter, James, and John were the three "pillars" (as Paul called them), and during the 40s, "James emerged as undisputed ruler of the church" (W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity, p. 88). As Frend makes clear, Christianity didn't start out with a bunch of unconnected individuals in search of converts:

Peter and Paul became equated as chief missioners under [James'] direction, one to the Jews and the other to the Gentiles. The keystone of the arch, however, was James, assisted by a council composed of the disciples at Jerusalem and elders subordinate to them. It was to them that the all-important "collections for the poor" were sent from Dispersion churches and it was to them that the early missionaries reported....

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I was speaking of Christian missionaries. Winning souls to Christ has always been a primary motive of Christian activists.

Right. Of course that's a very obvious characteristic I didn't really think of.

My curiosity is whether the early Christian belief was fundamentally about the concern of the souls of others, not only for missionaries, but every believer.

There is at least some collectivist trait in early Christianity, but I don't know how far it went and whether it's actually rooted in theology or merely a practical consequence of an irrational ideology.

A key message of early missionaries was that the "end of the world is at hand," and this is what gave their preaching a sense of urgency. Saving as many souls as possible before doomsday, by presenting Jesus as the savior (the Messiah predicted by the Jewish prophets), was the warp and woof of Christianity itself.

These essential aspects of early Christianity make any comparison to spreading O'ist ideas highly problematic, to put it mildly.

Ghs

[caroljane]

George and Phil are both on point here. To spread and grow the movement, the infrastructure of churches had to be established. But first enough people had to be persuaded, and stay persuaded. That is what happened with the first two generations of evangelists, who personally transmitted a revolutionary message - not only to the monotheists who might be more receptive, but stunningly, to the pagans who had to renounce an entire worldview and culture (it was the pagan intellectuals who saw most clearly how Christianity would destroy the classical world).

Christianity started as a reform movement within Judaism, so it had an institutional foundation from the very beginning, most notably the Greek speaking synagogues in Jersusalem.

Christianity also had a hierarchical structure of authority from its inception. Peter, James, and John were the three "pillars" (as Paul called them), and during the 40s, "James emerged as undisputed ruler of the church" (W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity, p. 88). As Frend makes clear, Christianity didn't start out with a bunch of unconnected individuals in search of converts:

Peter and Paul became equated as chief missioners under [James'] direction, one to the Jews and the other to the Gentiles. The keystone of the arch, however, was James, assisted by a council composed of the disciples at Jerusalem and elders subordinate to them. It was to them that the all-important "collections for the poor" were sent from Dispersion churches and it was to them that the early missionaries reported....

Ghs

Yes, Christianity is at root a Jewish heresy, but that it became so much more within relatively short historical time, is the phenomenon we are looking at here. The synagogues were there to be preached in but so were the marketplaces. (Modern America has its synagogues, the universities which Peikoff etal have been storming fruitlessly for decades.}

I agree that the primacy of leadership is crucial. What would Oism have been with successors as charismatic as Rand?( I do not think NB could have filled that role, split or no split.)

Also there is the bond-strengthening tie of martyrdom - anathema to Obbjectivists.

[George H. Smith]

After the Brandens moved to California during the late 1960s, following their split with Rand, I joked with college friends about the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Reformed branches of the O'ist Church. In this model, NB was Judas, and Peikoff was Peter -- the "rock" upon which Rand would build her church.

There is a problem with this model for Phil's analysis, namely, that it was the hardening of Christianity into an orthodoxy (Catholicism), and the institutionalization of this orthodoxy into a hierarchically-structured organization, with the pope at its head, that was largely responsible for the ultimate success and longevity of Christianity. If this model teaches us anything, it is that the future of O'ism lies with ARI, Pope Peikoff, and his successors -- not with the splintered and decentralized groups of heretical mongrels (of which I count myself a proud member).

If this is the future of Objectivism, then I want no part of it.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> it was the hardening of Christianity into an orthodoxy (Catholicism), and the institutionalization of this orthodoxy into a hierarchically-structured organization, with the pope at its head, that was largely responsible for the ultimate success and longevity of Christianity. If this model teaches us anything, it is that the future of O'ism lies with ARI, Pope Peikoff, and his successors [GHS]

The problem with your analysis is that Catholicism fractured during the Reformation and the Protestants are now enormous in number, even though they don't have the solidity, the lockstep, the rituals, all the supposed advantages of the "universal" church. In many parts of the world, the Protestants are in fact the most vigorous, the most dynamic. Even though they themselves have fractured and kept fracturing across centuries and are not monolithic: Hardly seems the future is clearly with the Catholics.

So don't think the future has to lie with the more orthodox wing of any movement. There is nothing more dangerous than attempting to predict with absolute certainty the future of any complex ideological movement: People have free will. They can choose to be orthodox or unorthodox.

[George H. Smith]

Phil,

The fracturing to which you refer took 1500 years, during which time the Catholic Church dominated much of Western Civilization. In fact, the Church has been the most successful institution over the past 2000 years.

Is this record not good enough for you? Or are you planning a strategy for O'ism over the next 3000 years?

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Your original point was that the -future- lies with the more orthodox group. Not the past - no matter how many years.

[George H. Smith]

Your original point was that the -future- lies with the more orthodox group. Not the past - no matter how many years.

Nope. I said that the future of O'ism lies with the ARIans if we look to the history of Christianity as a model. I also said that I wanted no part of such a future.

A major problem with your thinking is lack of precision as to what would qualify as success in regard to the future of O'ism. For example, what percentage of the world's population would need to accept O'ism before you would proclaim victory? Or could victory be declared if O'ists influenced only one country? If so, how much influence is enough influence? Many similar questions suggest themselves.

In short, without a fairly clear notion of what would constitute success, you have no standard by which to measure progress.

In addition, you need to decide what role, if any, institutions should play in the future of O'ism. If you regard ideological organizations as essential to its success, then you will necessarily have orthodoxies of some sort. An organization without an orthodoxy -- i.e., a set of ideas that defines and determines its purpose -- is ultimately an organization without ideas.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

This is my all-time favorite piece on libertarian strategy, one that profoundly influenced my thinking when I first read it nearly 35 years ago.

Albert Jay Nock, Isaiah's Job (1936):

http://www.lewrockwe...ig3/nock3b.html

The similarities between Nock's Remnant and the inhabitants of Galt's Gulch are intriguing.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

After the Brandens moved to California during the late 1960s, following their split with Rand, I joked with college friends about the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Reformed branches of the O'ist Church. In this model, NB was Judas, and Peikoff was Peter -- the "rock" upon which Rand would build her church.

There is a problem with this model for Phil's analysis, namely, that it was the hardening of Christianity into an orthodoxy (Catholicism), and the institutionalization of this orthodoxy into a hierarchically-structured organization, with the pope at its head, that was largely responsible for the ultimate success and longevity of Christianity. If this model teaches us anything, it is that the future of O'ism lies with ARI, Pope Peikoff, and his successors -- not with the splintered and decentralized groups of heretical mongrels (of which I count myself a proud member).

If this is the future of Objectivism, then I want no part of it.

Ghs

You've got--we've got--nothing to worry about, except this dead wood blocking the stream, making a stagnant pond.

--Brant

got C-4?

[Brant Gaede]

This is my all-time favorite piece on libertarian strategy, one that profoundly influenced my thinking when I first read it nearly 35 years ago.

Albert Jay Nock, Isaiah's Job (1936):

http://www.lewrockwe...ig3/nock3b.html

The similarities between Nock's Remnant and the inhabitants of Galt's Gulch are intriguing.

Ghs

Rand got the in between with her philosophy injected into the culture with her art. With her subsequent focus on non-fiction she talked only to the "Remnant" and unfortunately too many of those were cultists and inadvertent cultists, the latter being eventually blown off or blowing themselves off. Within Remnant-land there must be a hierarchical scale with the highest--like me, blush--focused on truth and others on truth with variations down, even way down, from the truth. However, the non-Remnant, one way or the other, is oblivious to this. It's just that the Remnant themselves are a various and always dubious bunch.

--Brant

elitist-defeatist nonsense: the elite of the elite--like me, blush--should keep on trying until they get that Remnant crap right--and why should an anarchist care?--when the remnant rule--not me, not me!--they'll rule, just like Washington and Adams ruled--boo, hoo, goo!

[Brant Gaede]

This is my all-time favorite piece on libertarian strategy, one that profoundly influenced my thinking when I first read it nearly 35 years ago.

Albert Jay Nock, Isaiah's Job (1936):

http://www.lewrockwe...ig3/nock3b.html

The similarities between Nock's Remnant and the inhabitants of Galt's Gulch are intriguing.

Ghs

The "inhabitants of Galt's Gulch" were de-heroized. The biggest heroes went in last. But they didn't come out as anarchists. They didn't come out. "The End"

--Brant

can an anarchist exist except for the grace and protection of the "minarchists"?

[Xray]

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.

Imo the very idea of 'persuasion' goes against the idea of rational insight, which is one of the fundamental principles Objectivism operates on. For if an individual has rational insight into an issue, there is no need for this person to be persuaded.

Each time persuasion is applied, the persuader wants others to do X.

If I were an Objectivist, I would reject any attempt at persuasion because an indivdual thus would become a means to an end: serving the persuader to achieve his/her goal.