Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[Philip Coates]

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

> Nope. I said that the future of O'ism lies with the ARIans if we look to the history of Christianity as a model. [GHS]

George, I was referring to your first sentence here: "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." [Post 191]

The phrase "if this model teaches us anything" clearly suggests that the model of Catholic orthodoxy -does- teach us something about ultimate success and that the future of Oism lies with the ARI model.

If that is not what you meant, I'm happy to accept the clarification.

[Philip Coates]

> 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. [Xray]

So if I persuade someone that he needs to go on a diet and exercise because: i) he is overweight and ii) has high cholesterol and iii) high blood pressure and I show him that he has iv) a lot of narrowing of the arteries due to cholesterol and v) other risk factors for heart disease, diabetes, a stroke or early death, you are saying the fact that I successfully persuaded him means numbers i) through v) are not matters of rational insight?

And successfully pointing out to someone (persuading him) that he ought to stop at the garage and have the car looked at because he might not have noticed but his 'check engine' light is on -- that is not a matter of pointing out rational evidence?

And persuasion by means of offering rational evidence that a philosophy can help you or the world you live in is not a matter of offering "rational insights"?

[Philip Coates]

*postponed*

[9thdoctor]

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.

My posts have not been so lengthy that you can’t go back and read them again yourself. Look at posts by WSS, Xray, GHS (among others) as well. You never put in any effort, why should I bother holding your hand? This is like arguing with Monty Python’s black knight about whether he has any limbs left.

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 -

I can’t resist adding here that, strictly according to the Christian’s own scriptures and histories, which of course I don’t regard as reliable, one of the principle means by which they “persuaded” converts was magic tricks. So, Penn and Teller may be of immeasurable help to the O’ist missionary movement Phil is dreaming up, imagine Peikoff and Harriman doing the bullet catch trick! That would even convince me that quantum mechanics is bunk and Kant is to blame!

[Xray]

> 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. [Xray]

So if I persuade someone that he needs to go on a diet and exercise because: i) he is overweight and ii) has high cholesterol and iii) high blood pressure and I show him that he has iv) a lot of narrowing of the arteries due to cholesterol and v) other risk factors for heart disease, diabetes, a stroke or early death, you are saying the fact that I successfully persuaded him means numbers i) through v) are not matters of rational insight?

And successfully pointing out to someone (persuading him) that he ought to stop at the garage and have the car looked at because he might not have noticed but his 'check engine' light is on -- that is not a matter of pointing out rational evidence?

And persuasion by means of offering rational evidence that a philosophy can help you or the world you live in is not a matter of offering "rational insights"?

I can see your point; its probably my personal connotation with the term persuasion which tainted my argumenation.

In the examples you provided, I would probably use 'convince' instead of 'persuade'.

Ineresting that the term 'persuade' has its etymological roots in the Proto-Indo-European *swad- ('religious belief').

But then 'convince' is connected with winning/victory, which makes arguing from etymology not very effective here...

[Philip Coates]

> My posts have not been so lengthy that you can’t go back and read them again yourself. Look at posts by WSS, Xray, GHS (among others) as well. [ND]

Ha, ha, ha. Just what I expected from ND.

If I were to go back and point out what's wrong with x, he'd just play 'hide the pea' and say, "no you fool, look elsewhere...that's not what I was intending."

How difficult would it be to find or summarize in a single statement or paragraph the argument that "shoots down in flames" my whole argument?

Really simple. Only take a minute or two.

[Philip Coates]

> My posts have not been so lengthy that you can’t go back and read them again yourself. Look at posts by WSS, Xray, GHS (among others) as well.

Clearly I don't believe that my arguments have all been "shot down in flames", so how would I find what you take to be a devastating rebuttal? You're the one who has something specific in mind.

[9thdoctor]

> My posts have not been so lengthy that you can’t go back and read them again yourself. Look at posts by WSS, Xray, GHS (among others) as well. [ND]

Ha, ha, ha. Just what I expected from ND.

If I were to go back and point out what's wrong with x, he'd just play 'hide the pea' and say, "no you fool, look elsewhere...that's not what I was intending."

How difficult would it be to find or summarize in a single statement or paragraph the argument that "shoots down in flames" my whole argument?

Really simple. Only take a minute or two.

> My posts have not been so lengthy that you can’t go back and read them again yourself. Look at posts by WSS, Xray, GHS (among others) as well.

Clearly I don't believe that my arguments have all been "shot down in flames", so how would I find what you take to be a devastating rebuttal? You're the one who has something specific in mind.

In a post a couple days ago I noted that, this being Thanksgiving weekend, I have no time to post, and in fact I haven’t had time to look at most of the new threads. Could it be that having acknowledged this, Phil decided this would be a good time direct some vitriol at me? Hmm, I wonder. Typically he ignores the contributions of yours truly, whom he regards as a “complete scumbag” and “nihilist dipshit”.

There are two main points I’ve made concerning early Christian history vs. O’ism and/or Libertarianism: it’s relevance and reliability. Phil can look up the reasons and examples I used and answer them, since I gather he is presently awash in free time.

[Philip Coates]

What started this dispute is that ND claimed that my arguments were "shot down in flames" and that I didn't even bother to respond...and that's why the thread got cold for a while.

In fact, what happened is he made a series of posts: #13, 23, 25, 28. I responded to them not once, but five times -- in posts: 22, 24, 27, 29, 31.

I don't object to someone disagreeing with me and to having a good argument (in fact, so far, I've been having a civil disagreement with George Smith on this thread.)

What I object to is someone distorting what actually happened to get a debating advantage: in fact, if anyone goes back and rereads those posts, he will see I responded to ND in some detail.

[caroljane]

I can see your point; its probably my personal connotation with the term persuasion which tainted my argumenation.

In the examples you provided, I would probably use 'convince' instead of 'persuade'.

Ineresting that the term 'persuade' has its etymological roots in the Proto-Indo-European *swad- ('religious belief').

But then 'convince' is connected with winning/victory, which makes arguing from etymology not very effective here...

Yet it argues a point I was making! I didn't know that etymology but to me persuasion - the winning of the heart and mind - involves more thqn the rational. Convincing involves winning debates. Very few people change their minds, let alone offer up their souls, because they lose debates, or even hear others lose debates. As ND said, the initial Christian persuasion was laced with magic, hearsay, strongarm tactics and urgency, The little Cult that Could.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: What is Persuasion? and How can we use it? [an overview]

It's certainly true that one can persuade the heart or persuade the mind, as Daunce notes. One dictionary definition of to persuade is "to induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty." Persuasion can also simply affect a (possibly diffuse) attitude with no immediate embrace of an intellectual conclusion or spur to act. In speaking of rational or legitimate persuasion, it doesn't have to be by giving an argument to be legitimate: You can successfully influence, urge, entice, stimulate in many ways. A family member might persuade you to do something by entreaty. The root of the word induce is duco, ducere - to "lead or draw". Which is wider than argument. Here is a broader dictionary definition: "to succeed in causing a person to do or consent to something."

It can be by example. It can be the sum total effect of ones' upbringing, surroundings, or culture. For centuries, entire cultures were persuaded that certain races, that women were inferior. In a course I gave on persuasion, I included persuasion by "showing". It can be a physical demonstration in which words are not used. Better to show someone a tennis serve than to just tell them about it. It can be the fact, the existence of a *role model*, either positive or negative. 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.

One of George's recent posts shows how -positive- role models can work: "I have always encouraged 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." [Also, I (Phil) gave a TAS summer seminar which was recorded on heroes and role models. The course had a broader applicability to living one's life than merely the ideological topics of this thread.]

Within the realm of rhetoric, of ideological persuasion, not just Aristotle, as is commonly known (his division of logos/pathos/ethos is useful), but Cicero had a great deal of enormous value to say. This website --changingminds.org-- has a good section on Cicero's five canons of rhetoric. I won't attempt to cover it here, but only a few of the valuable points are: finding ways to persuade-> target selection-> selectiing information and type of presentation -> timing, arrangement -> style and delivery.

All of this has enormous relevance to the topics of this thread....

[Selene]

In A Rhetoric of Motives, on page 49, Kenneth Burke defines persuasion as: http://homepage.newschool.edu/~wilder/rhetoricofmotives.pdf [link to entire section]

SPEECH designed to persuade" (dicere ad persuadendum accom

modate): this is the basic definition for rhetoric (and its synonym,

"eloquence,") given in Cicero's dialogue De Oratore. Crassus, who is

spokesman for Cicero himself, cites it as something taken for granted,

as the first thing the student of rhetoric is taught. Three hundred years

before him, Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric had similarly named "persuasion"

as the essence and end of rhetoric, which he defined as "the faculty of

discovering the persuasive means available in a given case." Likewise,

in a lost treatise, Aristotle's great competitor, Isocrates, called rhetoric

"the craftsman of persuasion" (peithous demiourgos). Thus, at this level

of generalization, even rivals could agree, though as De Quincey has

remarked, "persuasion" itself can be differently interpreted.

Somewhat more than a century after Cicero, Quintilian, in his

Institutio Oratorio, changed the stress, choosing to define rhetoric as the

"science of speaking well" (bene dicendi scientia).* But his system is

clearly directed towards one particular kind of persuasion: the education

of the Roman gentleman. Thus, in a chapter where he cites about two

dozen definitions (two-thirds of which refer to "persuasion" as the

essence of rhetoric), though he finally chooses a definition of his own

which omits reference to persuasion, he has kept the function of the

term. For he equates the perfect orator with the good man, and says

that the good man should be exceptional in both eloquence and moral

attributes. Rhetoric, he says, is both "useful" and a "virtue." Hence

his notion of "speaking well" implies the moralistically hortatory, not

just pragmatic skill at the service of any cause.

Add now the first great Christian rhetoric, the fourth book of St.

Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana (written near the beginning of the

fifth century) and you have ample material, in these four great peaks

stretched across 750 years, to observe the major principles derivable from

the notion of rhetoric as persuasion, as inducement to action, ad agendum,

in the phrase of Augustine, who elsewhere, in the same book, states that

a man is persuaded if

he likes what you promise, fears what you say is imminent, hates

what you censure, embraces what you commend, regrets whatever

you built up as regrettable, rejoices at what you say is cause for

rejoicing, sympathizes with those whose wretchedness your words

bring before his very eyes, shuns those whom you admonish him

to shun . . . and in whatever other ways your high eloquence can

affect the minds of your hearers, bringing them not merely to know

what should be done, but to do what they know should be done.

Yet often we could with more accuracy speak of persuasion "to atti

tude," rather than persuasion to out-and-out action. Persuasion involves

choice, will; it is directed to a man only insofar as he is free. This is

good to remember, in these days of dictatorship and near-dictatorship.

Only insofar as men are potentially free, must the spellbinder seek to

persuade them. Insofar as they must do something, rhetoric is unneces

sary, its work being done by the nature of things, though often these

necessities are not of a natural origin, but come from necessities imposed

by man-made conditions, as with the kind of peithanan\e (or "compul

sion under the guise of persuasion") that sometimes flows from the na

ture of the "free market."

[Brant Gaede]

So, you are persuaded or persuade. The question then is "What now?", not whether you were convinced by inappropriate means. A gun to your head will not make you embrace anything but your own survival. It won't per se make you be convinced you should give up collectivism or hold it to your breast. It matters not therefore whether a persuading technique is valid (fallacious) or not, only if it works unless once one is persuaded it will be impossible to de-persuade if the result is fallacious. It is not the primacy of persuasion but that of truth. When it comes to ideas persuasion is pragmatic, because when force is involved it doesn't work qua ideas and morality will kick in and the now no longer efficacious pragmatism will get kicked out, there not being any more room for it.

To sort of recap: If persuasion is primary then the thinking mind it addresses is not relative to the subject at hand. That would assume once an idea gets in, true or not, it won't be getting out and the "brain" addressed must belong to a robot or computer that neither actually thinks nor has what thinking needs: free will.

--Brant

[Xray]

[replying to Philip Coates]:

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.

'Persuade' is indeed to weak a term when it comes to describing Paul's zealous methods of spreading his faith. (like e. g. threatening those with eternal damnation who did not follow the doctrine).

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

> Nope. I said that the future of O'ism lies with the ARIans if we look to the history of Christianity as a model. [GHS]

George, I was referring to your first sentence here: "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." [Post 191]

The phrase "if this model teaches us anything" clearly suggests that the model of Catholic orthodoxy -does- teach us something about ultimate success and that the future of Oism lies with the ARI model.

If that is not what you meant, I'm happy to accept the clarification.

Philip,

I think it was a sarcastic remark by Ghs, the message being that any ideological models and thought systems structurally resembling Catholic orthodoxy are unaceptable to him.

Just think of the means (force, coercion, homicide, etc.) the Catholic orthodox frequently used to stay in power ...

The crux with any orthodoxy is that it will always have to be defendend against a universally operating principle: permanent transformation. Therefore in the long run, even the fiercest grailkeepers won't succed anymore in keeping the doctrine 'pure'.

[Philip Coates]

> Insofar as [men] must do something, rhetoric is unnecessary

> If persuasion is primary...once an idea gets in, true or not, it won't be getting out

> 'Persuade' is indeed too weak a term when it comes to describing..methods..like e. g. threatening those with eternal damnation who did not follow the doctrine

> any ideological models and thought systems structurally resembling Catholic orthodoxy are unaceptable

I've (repeatedly) suggested that we look through the elements that have made our enemies successful to select only those which are applicable to spreading a philosophy of reason. We should maintain an open mind to new arguments or evidence, not determine beforehand or a priori whether none, a few, or most of what made them successful might be applicable.

Just as an example, suppose I present a case that, say, (i) Paul successfully used logos, ethos, and pathos -or- (ii) today's missionaries or evangelists use well the careful steps that Cicero mentioned: finding ways to persuade-> target selection-> selecting information and type of presentation -> timing, arrangement -> style and delivery. Then - once it's fully laid out in a series of posts - would be the point to look carefully at those specific points, not try to preempt them or shoot them down with a closed mind in advance simply because you detest Christianity and assume you couldn't possibly learn or use anything--or so little that it's worth dismissing the entire subject--from anything related to it.

(I want to try to get back to my main points. Assuming people seem open to them, I haven't finished presenting them.)

[Philip Coates]

> "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. " [GHS, Post 195]

I would measure success by results. No one can predict the precise numbers you are asking about. If Objectivism (along with related ideas like libertarianism) becomes accepted enough that the advance of the state into our lives is stopped and starts to lessen and so that respect for applying reason and not whims or the supernatural in people's own lives and in the culture starts a resurgence, that would be sufficient success that I would breathe easier. I would measure progress by a steady increase in Objectivism's influence (I'm not sure whether the Obama- and recession-fueled interest in reading Atlas is temporary. Or whether BB&T/Anthem Foundation getting a microscopically tiny number of - subsidized and temporary and untenured - professors into a tiny number of classrooms is going to last.)

> " In addition, you need to decide what role, if any, institutions should play in the future of O'ism. "

In a complex society like today where there is a lot of organized and institutional competition, you need organizations and institutions to not be largely drowned out. An example is educational institutions. If bad ideas are being spread in those institutions to every college-attending mind, you are not going to be able to keep up with the brainwashing unless you have access to some institutions. You're not going to compete successfully with Harvard, Yale and a nationwide chain of subsidized public schools with a smattering of home schools (actually, a rudimentary institution.)

You don't necessarily have to always start your own schools, but if not you need to get into enough of the existing ones that people actually are exposed to your ideas before they become brainwashed liberals. You also need some sort of organized way of supporting intellectuals until the day they can get tenure in colleges, of spurring awareness and exposure with books to schools, essay contests, lecture tours. Support or activism institutions like ARI or TAS, but better.

> " 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."

I don't agree with you, here: You can have competing institutions doing the same thing. Take the example of educational institutions. Suppose both ARI and TAS set up a school. They would both be trying to advance Objectivism and each might wish to have an orthodoxy, but taken together there would be no -joint orthodoxy-.

,,,,,,,,,,,

George, I enjoy your questions in particular on this thread and they are good ones, civil, thoughtful, whether we disagree or disagree. But I'm going to try hold off (as much as possible) on trying to answer every issue until I have finished continuing with the series of posts I wanted to make on the connection between spreading a new philosophy and the founding period (and maybe later periods) of Christianity. I'm hopefully going to try to continue and wrap that sequence up today and tomorrow, and then it will become a lot more clear where the lines of disagreement are. (Thnx also for the link to "Isaiah's Job". I had not been aware of it and, again when time permits, I'll try to get to reading that...and see whether I agree or disagree. I like the idea of -broadening this discussion- to not just Oism but to libertarianism as well. If the latter is successful, it would make me breathe a lot easier, even if Oism were to take centuries more to spread.)

[Roger Bissell]

I don't have enough time right now to join in the discussion on this thread, but I thought I'd point you all to the related post I made last week on my blog:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=63&showentry=567

[Philip Coates]

I've responded to several of Roger's points. This (immediately above and what follows it) is in part a response to the advocacy of individual or one-on-one insofar as it is to the exclusion of or opposed to organized action: "In a complex society like today where there is a lot of organized and institutional competition, you need organizations and institutions to not be largely drowned out. An example is educational institutions."

[George H. Smith]

>

Ghs: " 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."

I don't agree with you, here: You can have competing institutions doing the same thing. Take the example of educational institutions. Suppose both ARI and TAS set up a school. They would both be trying to advance Objectivism and each might wish to have an orthodoxy, but taken together there would be no -joint orthodoxy-.

You misunderstood my point, which has nothing to do with competing institutions. Here is how I put it in "The Meaning of Heresy," the Introduction to Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies:

An organization must establish an identity by which to differentiate members from nonmembers. If an organization is ideological, then its identity will be defined by a credo -- a set of beliefs or principles that determines the conditions of membership. The ability of the credo to withstand philosophic scrutiny is irrelevant here. Whether rational or irrational, a credo constitutes the "orthodoxy," the intellectual foundation, of an organization. An organization without an orthodoxy is an organization without ideas.

Thus understood, an orthodoxy is a feature of all ideological organizations, religious and secular. Because philosophy normally lacks institutional affiliations, it does not have credos, orthodoxies, heretics, and dissenters. This is the nature of the beast called philosophy. but it does not render philosophers inherently more noble, honest, or undogmatic than their theological cousins.

The dilemma of the theologian is that he is at once a church member and a philosopher, and those roles may conflict. If they do, then the theologian must choose between orthodoxy and heresy. If the philosopher joins an ideological organization and commits to its credo, then he too may experience the tension between orthodoxy and heresy -- between loyalty to an organization and loyalty to the voice of reason....

Ghs

[Selene]

I don't have enough time right now to join in the discussion on this thread, but I thought I'd point you all to the related post I made last week on my blog:

http://www.objectivi...3&showentry=567

Roger:

Agreed. Once I saw the disaster created by NBI and the split, I continued my chosen path and as I traversed that path, I persuaded one person at a time. I never let anyone not hear about the ideas and Atlas and that includes telemarketers.

Adam

[Jonathan]

I don't have enough time right now to join in the discussion on this thread, but I thought I'd point you all to the related post I made last week on my blog:

http://www.objectivi...3&showentry=567

From Roger's blog:

If your "thing," your best productive fulfillment, is to be a missionary to others, "spreading the word" -- rather than ~creating~ your own original words, artworks, bridges, children, crops, clean floors, etc. -- then God bless you, go for it. But don't do it thinking you are somehow ~obligated~ to spread Objectivism.

Phil's "thing" is not to be a missionary to others nor to "spread the word." His "thing" is to coach others, from his position of ignorance, inexperience and absolute certainty, on how they should be missionaries who spread the word using his half-baked strategies.

J

[Philip Coates]

I actually have a great deal of experience in this area. Been doing it for a while. (The usual Jonathan dishonesty.)

[Jonathan]

I actually have a great deal of experience in this area. Been doing it for a while. (The usual Jonathan dishonesty.)

No, you don't have "a great deal of experience," Phil. You have a little bit of low-level experience. You've organized some university clubs and you've given some presentations at TAS seminars. You have nowhere near the experience or qualifications to advise the individuals and organizations that you presume to advise.

You're an old, small-time washout who thinks that his having seen some of the workings of the church as an altar boy and as a lay reader of occasional sermons qualifies him to advise the Vatican on strategy.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I actually have a great deal of experience in this area. Been doing it for a while. (The usual Jonathan dishonesty.)

No, you don't have "a great deal of experience," Phil. You have a little bit of low-level experience. You've organized some university clubs and you've given some presentations at TAS seminars. You have nowhere near the experience or qualifications to advise the individuals and organizations that you presume to advise.

You're an old, small-time washout who thinks that his having seen some of the workings of the church as an altar boy and as a lay reader of occasional sermons qualifies him to advise the Vatican on strategy.

J

Now we have two different arguments from authority arguing about which is right: I am an authority and you are not an authority.

The real problem is that the philosophy itself is not an authority so right as all it needs is proper presentation then it's like water flowing down the river of righteousness into the ocean of falsehood transmogrified into the ocean of truth. A moral-intellectual catalyst, if you will.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Now we have two different arguments from authority arguing about which is right: I am an authority and you are not an authority.

You think that it is an argument from authority to reject someone's false belief that he has the relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience to advise certain individuals and organizations on which actions they should take?!?!

J