A Roadmap for Objectivism

[Philip Coates]

(When a thread gets over three hundred posts, it sprawls and people don't attempt to read everything, so I'm going to create a new one to summarize. And to make a lot of new points.)

THE SIZE OF THE TASK

The complacent claim "If x thousands of people read Atlas this culture is doomed" has not come close to being true so far. Admiring Atlas is not enough. There are a lot of major obstacles or hurdles in the way of Objectivism. Here are perhaps the biggest ones:

--Difficulty: In grappling with rather complete philosophical system, few people today post-'pragmatism' and in a culture of short range thinking are accustomed to thinking in such broad terms. Even if they were, it is a counter-intuitive system of ideas in many ways. They would have to overcome and think through what's wrong with many of the counter-ideas they have been taught from every direction and since childhood. The ideas are very abstract and very comprehensive. There is a lot to digest - there is a metaphysics, an epistemology, an ethics, a politics, economic implications, principles of human nature and psychology. Just for openers. And then you have to apply those, which can be tricky.

--Cultural obtuseness and hostility (the second is when the ideas are clearly understood all the way down but when people are viscerally, militantly hostile to it; the first is those cases where it is not understood but there are people who would not be hostile to it if they understood it.)

--Inertia (a lack of effort or complacency and not feeling the need or not knowing how to fully explore a difficult, often counter-intuitive system of ideas all the way through.)

--So many ways to bail out after initial, partial interest ("I was a big Rand fan when I was young and naive.")

--Thinking skills and public education (many say college education as well) have declined over the five decades since Atlas was published - at least in the United States. There are many well-meaning people who literally don't have the cognitive skills to fully grasp Objectivism.

--Resistance from the entrenched and the powerful. This is related to point 1, but slightly different: They see their comfortable life, their power, their influence threatened. This comes mainly from 'the establishment', whether it be in education, in political power, in receiving government handouts or protection or elsewhere.

The culture provides dozens of reasons or assertions that would take people away from Objectivism before it is fully understood - these come from economists, philosophers, history teachers, journalists, the pulpit, personal interactions, the arts, the public schools, graduate programs, and more.

One indication of how enormously high the attrition rate and how successful is the cultural "brainwashing" is how rapidly the 'funnel' that the Ayn Rand Institute spends literally millions of dollars a year on narrows down. At the 'input' end it is very wide: Millions of readers of Rand's fiction. A third of a million books into classrooms each year. At the 'output' end, the bottom or narrowing of the funnel - of those seriously committed who feel they need to master Objectivism systematically has not really been growing decade by decade and currently. How many of these is the Objectivist Academic Center graduating each year? They couldn't quite fit in a telephone booth, but they could easily fit in the back of a pickup truck. And this is after attempts to spread Objectivism for half a century. ["The Objectivist Academic Center is ARI’s premier distance-learning program, offering a four-year systematic education in Ayn Rand’s philosophy and in the nature of objective thought and communication.]

So how can these hurdles be overcome, how can resistance be surmounted (or bypassed), how can a growing and powerful movement be built despite all this? Or can it?

[Peter]

Phil wrote:

The complacent claim "If x thousands of people read Atlas this culture is doomed" has not come close to being true so far. Admiring Atlas is not enough.

end quote

Now you’re cookin’! Good topic.

Celebrities can sway millions of people. I remember when Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt declared that they were fans of Rand, but I am not sure how much they ever understood. Jodie Foster is a fan, as is Trace Gallegher on FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, Rush the rock band, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. Even the lyrics of a Paul Simon song say, “I was Ayn Randed.” Celebrity fans, even with their less than adequate understanding of Objectivism can sway younger people into looking into this “Ann” Rand person.

I remember her books used to come with a card so you could subscribe to Rand’s periodicals after reading "Atlas Shrugged."

I am eager to hear what you have to say Phil.

Peter

[william.scherk]

Admiring Atlas is not enough [...] hurdles:

1. Difficulty of Atlas Shrugged the novel the film Greatness of AS unrecognized
   
2. Cultural obtuseness and hostility degeneration irrationality
   
3. Inertia Physics Mathematics Science analogies to universal forces
   
4. So many ways to bail out after initial, partial interest DEGENERATE Objectivists
   
5. Thinking/education declined over the five decades since Atlas
   
6. Resistance from

• the entrenched influential comfortable establishment
  
• elite education/politics/
  
• rackets of handouts/protection
  

Some things cause turns away from Objectivism (before it's grasped), claims and statements from:

Folks who have said wrong things about. Misinformation Lies Fabrications Hatred Irrational Criticism of Objectivism from

1. economists [Hmmm. Might need names]
   
2. philosophers [Kant. Check. 'others' ... ]
   
3. history teachers
   
4. journalists ['opinion-makers'? Bad news? Misinformation?]
   
5. the pulpit
   
6. Religion
   
7. personal interactions
   
8. Public figures
   
9. Cultural, Art or Media figures.
   
10. the public Schools
    
11. graduate programs
    
12. and more.
    

One indication of how enormously high the attrition rate and how successful is the cultural "brainwashing" is how rapidly the 'funnel' that the Ayn Rand Institute spends literally millions of dollars a year on narrows down. At the 'input' end it is very wide: Millions of readers of Rand's fiction. A third of a million books into classrooms each year. At the 'output' end, the bottom or narrowing of the funnel - of those seriously committed who feel they need to master Objectivism systematically has not really been growing decade by decade and currently. How many of these is the Objectivist Academic Center graduating each year? They couldn't quite fit in a telephone booth, but they could easily fit in the back of a pickup truck. And this is after attempts to spread Objectivism for half a century. ["The Objectivist Academic Center is ARI’s premier distance-learning program, offering a four-year systematic education in Ayn Rand’s philosophy and in the nature of objective thought and communication

--->> I think Phil has made a fine start to a LIST here on the fringe. I will summarize further and put it back where it belongs in the general thread the Lord High Regent began himself, if you do not mind.

This post will self destruct according to the DIM hypothesis in 1259 seconds.

[9thdoctor]

1. economists
   
2. philosophers
   
3. history teachers
   
4. journalists
   
5. the pulpit
   
6. personal interactions
   
7. Public figures
   
8. Cultural, Art or Media figures.
   
9. the public Schools
   
10. graduate programs
    
11. and more.
    

Is this like the thing GHS posted on another thread about the hat seller's sign? It was a Ben Franklin anecdote, I think. It took me a minute to figure out what the strike throughs were about.

Now you’re cookin’!

The rest of us are either warming up the pine tar, or fluffing up the feathers. Someone ring up the lumber yard, we're in want of a rail!

[9thdoctor]

So how can these hurdles be overcome, how can resistance be surmounted (or bypassed), how can a growing and powerful movement be built despite all this? Or can it?

Alright, I'm going to try and give a somewhat serious answer. As Gibbon wrote about the rise of Christianity and the end of paganism, the "success" of Objectivism (or even libertarianism) will amount to "a singular event in the history of the human mind." Can you plan for one of those? Did St. Paul plan and foresee the decrees of Theodosius? How about Voltaire (and/or Rousseau) and the French Revolution?

Of course Kant could plan gas chambers, but he was a genius of a much higher order.

[studiodekadent]

Phillip,

You are making a mistake; specifically you are assuming that the success of Objectivism requires people to be heavily educated about the highly technical facets of it.

I disagree. An ideology's success does not depend on having everyone completely understand it in its entirety. The most obvious example is Roman Catholicism although various other branches of Christianity probably count too.

How many serious Christians deeply understand complex theology? All the philosophical implications thereof? Take the Catholics; how many of them deeply comprehend the exact stipulations and meaning of their faith?

The answer is "very few." Its the ideological higher-ups in the Ecclesiarchy that understand the full body of ideas. The Catholic Church is growing, especially in the third world, and there's no way in hell the third world illiterates grasp Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo.

Let's look at Environmentalism as well; how many people that express concern over environmental issues fully grasp the anti-Promethean psychosis of Al Gore, David Suzuki or Aldo Leopold?

I'd argue very few.

Again, its the higher-ups that are ideological.

The simple fact is that no mass movement has ever been made up of the philosophically adept. Like it or not, most people have little time for abstract, technical ideas.

Take Evangelical Christianity and its charismatic/pentecostal offshoots.. its all concrete-bound "all the answers are in the bible!" stupidity that promises 'revelation' through direct-download from the "holy spirit," promising a release from the responsibility to think and a religion where you don't really need to study what the hell you're being taught. If it weren't so blatantly anti-intellectual, it would not nearly be so successful. Only the pastors need to be able to put on a convincing pretense of thoughtfulness.

Again, the higher-ups are the (relatively) philosophical ones.

[Brant Gaede]

Phillip,

You are making a mistake; specifically you are assuming that the success of Objectivism requires people to be heavily educated about the highly technical facets of it.

I disagree. An ideology's success does not depend on having everyone completely understand it in its entirety. The most obvious example is Roman Catholicism although various other branches of Christianity probably count too.

How many serious Christians deeply understand complex theology? All the philosophical implications thereof? Take the Catholics; how many of them deeply comprehend the exact stipulations and meaning of their faith?

The answer is "very few." Its the ideological higher-ups in the Ecclesiarchy that understand the full body of ideas. The Catholic Church is growing, especially in the third world, and there's no way in hell the third world illiterates grasp Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo.

Let's look at Environmentalism as well; how many people that express concern over environmental issues fully grasp the anti-Promethean psychosis of Al Gore, David Suzuki or Aldo Leopold?

I'd argue very few.

Again, its the higher-ups that are ideological.

The simple fact is that no mass movement has ever been made up of the philosophically adept. Like it or not, most people have little time for abstract, technical ideas.

Take Evangelical Christianity and its charismatic/pentecostal offshoots.. its all concrete-bound "all the answers are in the bible!" stupidity that promises 'revelation' through direct-download from the "holy spirit," promising a release from the responsibility to think and a religion where you don't really need to study what the hell you're being taught. If it weren't so blatantly anti-intellectual, it would not nearly be so successful. Only the pastors need to be able to put on a convincing pretense of thoughtfulness.

Again, the higher-ups are the (relatively) philosophical ones.

This is crap. Objectivism is not a religion. If it's anything valuable it's critical, essential thinking. It's individualism. Such is available to people generally if their formal education isn't the existential hooey it is today.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

This is crap. Objectivism is not a religion. If it's anything valuable it's critical, essential thinking. It's individualism. Such is available to people generally if their formal education isn't the existential hooey it is today.

You are right that Objectivism is not a religion. I didn't say it was a religion. You misunderstood my post.

What I was saying is that an ideological/philosophical mass movement has never occurred where every single member is philosophically well-trained. Not even Marxism or Fascism.

This doesn't mean Objectivism cannot make progress. It just means there needs to be more than just readily-avaliable Objectivist seminars in order for Objectivism to make progress.

Oh, and the formal education of today may be abysmal, but I don't think that in the past there was more critical thinking... genuine critical thinkers have always been a small proportion of the population.

[Brant Gaede]

This is crap. Objectivism is not a religion. If it's anything valuable it's critical, essential thinking. It's individualism. Such is available to people generally if their formal education isn't the existential hooey it is today.

You are right that Objectivism is not a religion. I didn't say it was a religion. You misunderstood my post.

What I was saying is that an ideological/philosophical mass movement has never occurred where every single member is philosophically well-trained. Not even Marxism or Fascism.

This doesn't mean Objectivism cannot make progress. It just means there needs to be more than just readily-avaliable Objectivist seminars in order for Objectivism to make progress.

Oh, and the formal education of today may be abysmal, but I don't think that in the past there was more critical thinking... genuine critical thinkers have always been a small proportion of the population.

What you are stating is so obvious and non-controversial it's implicitly insulting you stated it. As for that critical thingy, you have no data. In my schooling, starting in the late 1940s, I never heard of critical thinking. Such is therefore the world we live in today--critical thinking morons. Bless that pubic education from the 1800s.

--Brant

[Peter]

Studiocadet wrote”

Phillip, You are making a mistake; specifically you are assuming that the success of Objectivism requires people to be heavily educated about the highly technical facets of it . . . . Take Evangelical Christianity and its charismatic/Pentecostal offshoots . . its all concrete-bound "all the answers are in the bible!" stupidity that promises 'revelation' through direct-download from the "holy spirit" . . .

end quote

I agree with Brant that, “Objectivism is not a religion. . . “ but studiocadet’s phrase, “direct-download from the "holy spirit" . . .” is so funny it needs some praise. That was good.

If Objectivism were a religion, we would be getting the holy spirit from the ghost of Ayn Rand, delivered through Pope Peikoff. That’s not happening, is it?

Peter

[studiodekadent]

Studiocadet wrote”

Phillip, You are making a mistake; specifically you are assuming that the success of Objectivism requires people to be heavily educated about the highly technical facets of it . . . . Take Evangelical Christianity and its charismatic/Pentecostal offshoots . . its all concrete-bound "all the answers are in the bible!" stupidity that promises 'revelation' through direct-download from the "holy spirit" . . .

end quote

I agree with Brant that, “Objectivism is not a religion. . . “ but studiocadet’s phrase, “direct-download from the "holy spirit" . . .” is so funny it needs some praise. That was good.

If Objectivism were a religion, we would be getting the holy spirit from the ghost of Ayn Rand, delivered through Pope Peikoff. That’s not happening, is it?

Peter

I'm not alleging Objectivism is a religion.

Again, you're misinterpreting my post.

All I'm saying is that a mass movement with popular appeal cannot depend on "every member must be deeply philosophically educated."

[anthony]

I'm not alleging Objectivism is a religion. Again, you're misinterpreting my post. All I'm saying is that a mass movement with popular appeal cannot depend on "every member must be deeply philosophically educated."

Hear, hear!

(BTW, sdk, the last post was from Peter Taylor, not Philip. Just in case.)

[Philip Coates]

(continued from post 1)

The first step to get anywhere is always knowledge:

A) A realistic idea of the problem [the "funnel": start with millions of Rand readers but only have ever ended up with a tiny handful dedicated to the philosophy and/or capable of persuading others of it]. B) An understanding of the -cause- of this depressing attrition rate [see post 1 for six obstacles Objectivism faces in this culture]. C) How far, as a result of A and B, we have always been from, say, the astronomical 40% annual growth rate of the early Christians.

The funnel metaphor is a good marketing or persuasion good one for large numbers of people introduced to a product or service. How much resources are involved in attracting them to the wide mouth of the funnel, then how much to entice them further, and then finally how many emerge from the narrow end. You can improve the output of the Randian funnel if you can get more people to enter it in the first place - that is done as awareness of Rand has increased over a half century so that almost everybody knows she was a novelist and has heard of her books. You can improve the output if more people 'stay the course' and emerge from the other end. The problem with this is that -- because of all those cultural, situational, and personal hurdles -- all those issue of inertia and resistance and distraction and lack of practice thinking in fundamentals or applying philosophy well -- people don't just automatically go through the process. And the movement's tiny size in terms of manpower and time don't allow follow-through across an entire culture...finding someone knowledgeable to answer questions, offer comradeship, building lasting communities, etc. It's not like with the Christians in America - all those millions of churches with people to nurture you, encourage you, shed light on complexities. That kind of support really helps, keeps interest and learning going.

This is where "product positioning" comes in in terms of audience. When you aren't being successful competing for every market, find a niche to start in. If you can find people who are enthusiastic and loyal customers somewhere, you can start there. If you are relatively tiny compared to competitors that is all you can expect. And it is firm ground to stand on.

The best audience to go to work with is those who are most likely to end up being more than "oh, well, I read Rand and loved her once but I've forgotten/I'm a socialist now/she was naive". Who would that be? Those who are most motivated. Ayn Rand lived under communism. She saw what it did. Every time she put pen to paper it fueled her. This is true of those who live under oppression today (or have immigrated from it.) All those Canadian and now Israeli and Indian Objectivists who are now heavily represented among the leaders...

Others include those oppressed by drug laws or social restrictions. And "the most oppressed majority on earth" - especially in non-western countries -- women. The drop off of women from Objectivist circles has been pronounced over recent decades and that will kill a movement....

The lesson to follow is that of missionaries....they always seek out the corners of the world, the places where people are enormously dissatisfied, hungry for and open to new ideas or approaches....

....Once you have a place where the soil is better, the winds don't blow all the seeds away, there is good rainfall, then you can go to the trouble of planting and spending a lot of effort on nurturing.... because most of the plants will survive instead of a tiny fraction of one percent. And all you need is a few plants to sink giant roots and provide copious shade. The you can more easily grown things around them....

...............

..........

.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE END......

.

{you know, I'm unable to complete the above sentences / "running out of gas" here...speaking of "motivation" and support, I'm not finding it here..based on the last few weeks (and the yearslong decline of memebership of this list) there is unlikely to be a single person who will read this thoughtfully enough and integrate->examine->respond systematically..not enough to continue all this work of writing and rewriting. hence all the three dots...}

[Philip Coates]

Subject: BAIL OUT OF THIS

In conclusion:

so that's probably it - leave it incomplete...takes time to write these things, not worth my effort on ol

(not even going to go back and do my usual multiple edits, fix sloppy sentences or grammar above - don't read it if you don't want.)

[9thdoctor]

Subject: BAIL OUT OF THIS

In conclusion:

so that's probably it - leave it incomplete...takes time to write these things, not worth my effort on ol

(not even going to go back and do my usual multiple edits, fix sloppy sentences or grammar above - don't read it if you don't want.)

Uh oh, here comes another Phil flounce. This ought to bring him back:

All this led me to type the name Eric Hoffer into YouTube, and there’s actually an interview with him. I don’t know what I was expecting, but it wasn’t this. He comes across as one odd bird.

[Xray]

This is crap. Objectivism is not a religion. If it's anything valuable it's critical, essential thinking. It's individualism. Such is available to people generally if their formal education isn't the existential hooey it is today.

You are right that Objectivism is not a religion. I didn't say it was a religion. You misunderstood my post.

Here is Nathaniel Branden's take on the issue. He verbatim wrote of Ayn Rand's philosophy being "turned into dogmatic religion".

From The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand http://nathanielbran.../ayn/ayn03.html

Encouraging dogmatism

Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.

What I was saying is that an ideological/philosophical mass movement has never occurred where every single member is philosophically well-trained. Not even Marxism or Fascism.

This is correct. I even venture to say that in a society where most members are philosophically well trained, no ideological/philosophical mass movements consisting of thought systems mostly in black and white (I can't think of any mass movement operating otherwise) will occur.

Being philosophically well-trained implies becoming aware of the complexity of issues and stimulates independent thinking, which is why 'one set for all' mass movements won't cut it.

I'm convinced that, in step with mankind evolving toward more and more rationality and humanity, we will see the dying-out of dogmas, with people rejecting all "-isms" except individualism.

[Xray]

The complacent claim "If x thousands of people read Atlas this culture is doomed" has not come close to being true so far. Admiring Atlas is not enough. There are a lot of major obstacles or hurdles in the way of Objectivi

A considerable obstacle might be Objectivism's impracticability.

If your intention is to make a philosophy a widespread popular movement, go easy on the theoretical and stress the practical. For as a rule, people will only adopt a philosophy if they have the feeling that they are going to profit from it on the practical level in their everyday lives. Just think of the tremendous success "How to" books have on the market.

So if, let's say, one would put a book on the market with the title "The Objectivist Way to Wealth", it would have a lot more chances of being bought than anything with the theoretical, cumbersome term "Epistemology" in it.

Objectivism gives very little practical advice. This is a major hurdle when it comes to making it a widespread popular movement. It demands to 'always act in fully conscious awareness of the rational being the right thing', but fails to give concrete instructions how to get there.

Nathaniel Branden's comments on this: (bolding mine)

The great, glaring gap in just about all ethical systems of which I have knowledge, even when many of the particular values and virtues they advocate may be laudable, is the absence of a technology to assist people in getting there, an effective means for acquiring these values and virtues, a realistic path people can follow. That is the great missing step in most religions and philosophies. And this is where psychology comes in: One of the tasks of psychology is to provide a technology for facilitating the process of becoming a rational, moral human being.

You can tell people that it's a virtue to be rational, productive, or just, but, if they have not already arrived at that stage of awareness and development on their own, objectivism does not tell them how to get there. It does tell you you're rotten if you fail to get there. http://nathanielbran.../ayn/ayn03.html

But imo the major obstacle standing in the way of Objectivism becoming a widespread popular movement is Objectivism itself. It is not a philiosophy constructed for the masses. It is a philosophy focusing on 'prime movers' 'rationally' leading those who don't possess prime mover quality. There was was no place for the ordinary man in Galt's Gulch. And not even Eddie Willers made it into the Utopia after the primve movers 'went back to the world'.

That Objectivism's role models are fictional characters also makes it difficult to transfer the philosophy into reality

With characters like Howard Roark, it would be dowright dangerous to emulate them.

[Jonathan]

....Once you have a place where the soil is better, the winds don't blow all the seeds away, there is good rainfall, then you can go to the trouble of planting and spending a lot of effort on nurturing.... because most of the plants will survive instead of a tiny fraction of one percent. And all you need is a few plants to sink giant roots and provide copious shade. The you can more easily grown things around them....

Huh? What type of plants are we talking about here? A plant whose seed can be easily blown away by the wind, but yet, if planted, it will grow giant roots and provide copious shade? Sounds like maybe a walnut or oak tree that grew from grass seeds? And how does copious shade help other plants to grow better? My understanding of plants is that they need sunlight and not shade. Or were you talking about some sort of gigantic mushroom that has huge roots and makes a lot of shade? If you grow a giant mushroom in the middle of a field, suddenly a bunch of other things will grow around it, like corn and soybeans? Is that your theory about how crops are grown -- farmers plant a giant mushroom and then hope that it will attract cash crops?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE END......

.

{you know, I'm unable to complete the above sentences / "running out of gas" here...speaking of "motivation" and support, I'm not finding it here..based on the last few weeks (and the yearslong decline of memebership of this list) there is unlikely to be a single person who will read this thoughtfully enough and integrate->examine->respond systematically..not enough to continue all this work of writing and rewriting. hence all the three dots...}

Is that how Jesus and Paul and their friends spread Christianity? Did they whine that no one was giving them enough support and motivation? And is that what Galt and Roark would do?

Subject: BAIL OUT OF THIS

In conclusion:

so that's probably it - leave it incomplete...takes time to write these things, not worth my effort on ol

(not even going to go back and do my usual multiple edits, fix sloppy sentences or grammar above - don't read it if you don't want.)

Okay then. I'm sure many of us will look forward to seeing what subject you'll dabble in next and expect to be praised for it.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I just searched this topic for "freedom" and got zip results. Maybe that intimates what's wrong with the entirety of Phil's approach--no real content.

--Brant

[john42t]

I just searched this topic for "freedom" and got zip results. Maybe that intimates what's wrong with the entirety of Phil's approach--no real content.

--Brant

Ayn Rand's Wikipedia article mentions 12x reason, 5x egoism, 5x selfishness, 10x capitalism, but not once freedom.

Nor does her own description of the essence of Objectivism:

"the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

or what she wants to advocate:

"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

Of the terms she uses here, "capitalism" is the one closest to freedom.

[Peter]

Studiodekadent wrote:

All I'm saying is that a mass movement with popular appeal cannot depend on "every member must be deeply philosophically educated.”

end quote

I agree.

Copy the following paragraph to a word processing system:

Ron Paul could change the world. No other candidate could move America into a place it has not seen since the early 1800’s, and that place would be a territory called The United States of America governed by the U.S. Constitution. With the help of a Tea Party congressional majority, he could steer us away from the fast approaching abyss of constant wars, fiscal hell and moral decline. Ron Paul has the moral, intellectual and innate goodness to do that task. He would revel in the task. He is a great man. Dagny Taggert named her railroad the "Ron Paul Line" which surprised everyone. She was asked "Who is Ron Paul?" and she prophetically and mistakenly replied, "A name I'm tired of hearing."

Now do a “find and replace” and put Newt Gingrich’s, or Mitt Romney’s name where “Ron Paul’s” name appears. How does that sound? Sort of OK, but not quite as good?

One exceptionally good person, with mixed virtues, can change the world. Don’t’ give up on us, Phil!

Peter

[Philip Coates]

> One exceptionally good person, with mixed virtues, can change the world. Don’t’ give up on us, Phil!

Thanks, Peter. just to be clear I'm not at all disenchanted with "the world": I think it can be changed and is open to reason and potentially to Oism.

I'm disenchanted with some bottom of the barrel types many of whom are always on the olists (not you, obviously) and I'm disenchanted with casting pearls onto ham and snark sandwiches.

[Brant Gaede]

I just searched this topic for "freedom" and got zip results. Maybe that intimates what's wrong with the entirety of Phil's approach--no real content.

--Brant

Ayn Rand's Wikipedia article mentions 12x reason, 5x egoism, 5x selfishness, 10x capitalism, but not once freedom.

Nor does her own description of the essence of Objectivism:

"the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

or what she wants to advocate:

"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

Of the terms she uses here, "capitalism" is the one closest to freedom.

I think this is because Objectivism as promulgated by her is ethics, not politics, centered. I think this was her big career mistake after Atlas. In a strange way it sort of mirrors the mistake at Freedom House (FEE?) with what I remember to be mostly an economics orientation.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I'm disenchanted with some bottom of the barrel types many of whom are always on the olists (not you, obviously) and I'm disenchanted with casting pearls onto ham and snark sandwiches.

As usual, you've got it backwards, Schoolmarm. People are casting pearls (mostly pearls of criticism or humor) in response to your mediocre intellect and half-baked theories, your bottom of the barrel smugness and refusal to learn, and your snarky, unmerited self-importance.

J