Passing the torch!

[Philip Coates]

You're welcome, Jim. Of the three spheres I listed,

ARI with its OAC does #1 overwhelmingly (with very limited exposure to bits and pieces of #2 and #3) with the result that its people often seem to know Objectivism and its jargon very well, but in places like op eds lack of knowledge of history, psychology and other areas outside of Objectivism shows itself in the form of wisdom, persuasiveness to outsiders, and writing quality. (My guess is they baffle people and don't crack the nation's liberal establishment newspapers not because of philosophical opposition, but because they it often seems they only know what Ayn Rand said and only her arguments really well.)

TOC does none of #1, #2, or #3 in a systematic, full throttle manner for its students or audience with the result that, particularly in regard to basic knowledge of Objectivism, their students or audience is constantly debating or unsure of basic principles which were usually well covered in the Peikoff course (if one took good notes, as I did.)

Obviously, there are exceptions. The top people at each place seem to have a broad education in a number of these areas.

[Chris Grieb]

Phil,

Thanks for the reply and comments comparing ARI and TOC's work in this field.

I have in an earlier post endorsed Robert Tracinski 's lectures on letters to the editors and would like to restate that endorsement. Since Mr Tracinski has had a falling out with ARI you may want to order his tapes.

Finally Phil I agree that knowledge even from non-objectivists is a very good thing.

[Jonathan]

I don't think that Objectivists, on average, are deficient in Phil's categories 1 and 2. They usually seem to know a hell of a lot about both, and they're even quite capable of holding their own in debates on very esoteric issues from those categories.

Category 3, on the other hand, is a serious problem, and I can't imagine what specific courses and materials would fix the problem (which, admittedly, may point more to my lack of imagination than to the problem being insurmountable). When I've seen Objectivists studying programs which focus on many of the skills that Phil listed (people, social, communication, persuasion, leadership, organizational and teamwork skills), it was kind of like watching Star Trek's Data trying to understand and feel what love or poetry is, and those were Objectivists who sought to work on those skills, not ones who would be reluctant to do so, or ones who would feel that their lack of such skills was proof of their Objectivist virtue.

Which is why I'd like to hear the specific details of Phil's plan. I know of no methods, courses or study materials that I think would be successful in reaching certain Objectivists or preventing the creation of more of their type.

J

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I don't think that Objectivists, on average, are deficient in Phil's categories 1 and 2. They usually seem to know a hell of a lot about both, and they're even quite capable of holding their own in debates on very esoteric issues from those categories.

Category 3, on the other hand, is a serious problem, and I can't imagine what specific courses and materials would fix the problem (which, admittedly, may point more to my lack of imagination than to the problem being insurmountable). When I've seen Objectivists studying programs which focus on many of the skills that Phil listed (people, social, communication, persuasion, leadership, organizational and teamwork skills), it was kind of like watching Star Trek's Data trying to understand and feel what love or poetry is, and those were Objectivists who sought to work on those skills, not ones who would be reluctant to do so, or ones who would feel that their lack of such skills was proof of their Objectivist virtue.

Which is why I'd like to hear the specific details of Phil's plan. I know of no methods, courses or study materials that I think would be successful in reaching certain Objectivists or preventing the creation of more of their type.

J

That was a terrific post, Jonathan. Organizational and teamwork skills can benefit from working in a good corporation or military experience. Social skills require practice like doing activities with a local alumni group, after hours socializing with work colleagues etc. Speaking skills can be improved through Toastmasters organizations and the like. One thing I did not see on Phil's list was listening/rapport skills, but that would come under social/communication skills.

I laughed at the Data reference. A lot of Objectivists do feel alienated or like they are a stranger in a strange land.

Jim

[Daniel Barnes]

Phil Coates writes about:

>Objectivist Education and Training Program -- Multi-Year

>1. THE PHILOSOPHY -- Objectivism itself (integrated with the History of Philosophy)

Phil, my question is just how reliable such a course would be, simply because there is good evidence that Objectivists are seriously mistaken about other branches of philosophy, and their history, in the first place.

For example, we find Will Thomas, Director of Progams at The Objectivist Centre, making the following claim:

"Objectivists defend the efficacy of reason against all critics. Skeptics say that because we are fallible, we must doubt all our beliefs. But this claim is a self-contradiction: the skeptic is claiming certainty at least for his belief in our fallibility."

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-45...istemology.aspx

But Thomas' claim is false. Turning to a commonplace description of skepticism in the wikipedia we find this "self-contradiction" is simply not so:

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

"A philosophical skeptic does not claim that truth is impossible (which would be a truth claim)"

I ask you: if the Director of Programs at the TOC is so in the dark about Philosophy 101-level questions, where in Objectivism are you going to find enough people who know what they're talking about to teach anything like "multi-year, integrated education and training programs"?

[Daniel Barnes]

Jim:

>I laughed at the Data reference. A lot of Objectivists do feel alienated or like they are a stranger in a strange land.

Jim, I'm curious. Do you think that alienation is felt before or after they encounter the philosophy?

Do you think that if that alienation existed before, the philosophy made it worse or better?

I don't know the answer myself. It's just that an offhand remark someone made after an Objectivist conference years ago has stayed stuck in my mind. On returning to the day-to-day world after an apparently euphoric weekend, they said "Oh well. Back to unreality."

It's this sense of inversion which has stayed with me.

[Chris Grieb]

Ayn Rand ascribed similar feelings to Dagny after she came back from the valley.

[Judith]

Objectivist Education and Training Program -- Multi-Year

Objectivism requires systematic integration (not random essays and online discussion). Potential Oists need to take a threefold *cross-integrated* series of well-designed, rigorous courses: 1. THE PHILOSOPHY -- Objectivism itself (integrated with the History of Philosophy). 2. THE VAST INTELLECTUAL KNOWLEDGE BASE -- The Humanities, Social Sciences, Liberal Arts - world history in essentials is the key component. 3. PRACTICAL, REAL-WORLD IMPLEMENTATION -- Skills and Hands-On Courses - people and social, writing and speaking and teaching and persuasion, leadership and organization and teamwork and business skills.

None of these three areas can be skipped. If you do, you breed rationalists and ivory-tower types

What you're describing is AT LEAST the equivalent of a BS degree in the liberal arts. It's what one used to get about a hundred years ago or so if one went to a fine quality university and took courses in Latin, Greek, literature, economics, philosophy, rhetoric, and the like, assuming decent preparation in all of these subjects at a prep school.

It makes me weep to read scholarly articles written in the 1905 time frame. People were actually EDUCATED then.

A few of the "Objectivist University" projects are attempting to bring back a true Liberal Arts education, as are some of the conservative and Christian oriented schools. I wish I were young enough and/or rich enough to attend one full time.

Judith

[Daniel Barnes]

Chris:

>Ayn Rand ascribed similar feelings to Dagny after she came back from the valley.

Yes, that there is a kind of alternative or future "world" which is more "real" than this one, in which the problems of this one no longer exist.

You have to be quite careful with these sorts of ideas.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

I think you are being a little too literal with the rhetoric. The "less real" means society where irrational elements like religion, war, etc., run amok. The "more real" means a society where reason, production, etc. are the standard. Not some impossible utopia versus actual reality. I thought this was obvious.

Was the irony of the inversion lost on you? Inverting for rhetorical effect was one of Rand's favorite literary techniques. When you take it literally without the rhetorical component, you miss the full meaning.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> where in Objectivism are you going to find enough people who know what they're talking about to teach anything like "multi-year, integrated education and training programs"?

Daniel, these course don't all have to be given by Oists. Some are from the marketplace, packaged lectures, books...a whole literature exists in many of these areas. And in fact, Oists who are not expert have no business teaching some of the things they do.

> What you're describing is AT LEAST the equivalent of a BS degree in the liberal arts. It's what one used to get about a hundred years ago or so if one went to a fine quality university and took courses in Latin, Greek, literature, economics, philosophy, rhetoric, and the like, assuming decent preparation in all of these subjects at a prep school. It makes me weep to read scholarly articles written in the 1905 time frame. People were actually EDUCATED then. A few of the "Objectivist University" projects are attempting to bring back a true Liberal Arts education, as are some of the conservative and Christian oriented schools. I wish I were young enough and/or rich enough to attend one full time.

Judith, in some cases (take for example the Peikoff taped lecture series), it's possible to cover a tremendous amount of ground in less time than a 4 year college degree. In my college years, a huge percentage of chaff was mixed in with the wheat. After people take 'survey' courses in this training program (including lots of practice, practice, practice stuff, as Jim intimated), they can go off on their own and become detailed students of history or psychology or whatever should the Objectivist Education and Training Program inspire them and light an intellectual fire in some major field.

In fact, I'd -love- to see more Oists who are interested in some other disciplines in the liberal arts and become world class in disciplines outside academic philosophy.

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

>I think you are being a little too literal with the rhetoric. The "less real" means society where irrational elements like religion, war, etc., run amok. The "more real" means a society where reason, production, etc. are the standard. Not some impossible utopia versus actual reality. I thought this was obvious.

But of course, the Marxist utopia offered a society free from war, religion run amok etc, and a society where reason and production are standard. This was still an impossible utopia versus an actual reality. I am not sure I see your point?

>Was the irony of the inversion lost on you?

No, I was aware it was meant humorously, as an offhand remark. But Jim was talking about Objectivists feeling alienated in the world, and I felt that there seemed to be quite some truth said in jest. I wondered aloud whether this alienation was there before the philosophy - I am quite sure it is from what people have said - and whether the philosophy intensified it or lessened it. I don't know myself.

[Dragonfly]

I'm a moral and epistemological crusader: While I disagree with AR on many of her **psychological** views I believe the basic philosophy, the Meta, Epist, Eth, Pol of Oism are **100% correct** (but do not want to spend time debating what I already know on this such as pages and pages on silly and elementary epistemological confusions like the survival vs. flourishing false alternative, which I can answer in a heartbeat).

A few weeks ago someone started a thread on Solo about "Objectivist 'superiority' and arrogance", telling us about the prevailing attitude of intellectual and philosophical arrogance among Objectivists. Well, here we have a prime example of Objectivist arrogance. Objectivists have never been able to counter effectively the criticisms of Rand's theory, but here we have someone who thinks he can convince people by calling their arguments silly and elementary and who is bragging that he can answer them in a hearbeat. Of course he can't, it's pure bluff, and he won't, as he'll have a ready excuse not to do so. If you really want to spread Objectivism, this is not the way to do so, all that talk about organization and education is completely useless if you're closing your mind against any criticisms of the faith ("100% correct"!). With this kind of crusaders Objectivism is certainly doomed. Said Cassandra, but she wasn't believed anyway.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm a moral and epistemological crusader: While I disagree with AR on many of her **psychological** views I believe the basic philosophy, the Meta, Epist, Eth, Pol of Oism are **100% correct** (but do not want to spend time debating what I already know on this such as pages and pages on silly and elementary epistemological confusions like the survival vs. flourishing false alternative, which I can answer in a heartbeat).

A few weeks ago someone started a thread on Solo about "Objectivist 'superiority' and arrogance", telling us about the prevailing attitude of intellectual and philosophical arrogance among Objectivists. Well, here we have a prime example of Objectivist arrogance. Objectivists have never been able to counter effectively the criticisms of Rand's theory, but here we have someone who thinks he can convince people by calling their arguments silly and elementary and who is bragging that he can answer them in a hearbeat. Of course he can't, it's pure bluff, and he won't, as he'll have a ready excuse not to do so. If you really want to spread Objectivism, this is not the way to do so, all that talk about organization and education is completely useless if you're closing your mind against any criticisms of the faith ("100% correct"!). With this kind of crusaders Objectivism is certainly doomed. Said Cassandra, but she wasn't believed anyway.

Phil, your educational attitudes have basically put you into a one-man, one-room ghetto--ironically seemingly the opposite of what you want to achieve. Rand is first-hand Objectivism. Branden/Peikoff, second-hand. After all your Objectivist education you and others like you are third-hand, at best. (I'm several-hands further removed myself.) I agreed with you about "100% correct"--forty years ago. Today I would say no better than 70%, assuming each of the four main branches are worth 25% each, with most of the correct in "Meta" and "Epist." (I'm mildly interested in what weight you'd give the aesthetics.)

A lot of Objectivism isn't unique or original to it--e.g., the virtue of integrity. And consider the greatest AR whopper of them all: Objectivism is dangerous to fool around with or accept half way; it will destroy you if you do. Imagine having one foot in Objectivism and one in reality terrified by the correct point of reference. Of course, she was calling out for the cultists to rally around her and to turn off their minds, all the while denying it. Ersatz Objectivists can burn in hell, too, you see, or at least get pounded into the ground for heresy. This was AR pounding Nathaniel Branden into the ground. Take warning! Take warning! If she can do that to him, she can do that to you too, especially by removing her "sanction." This is King-of-the-Hill stuff, a position currently occupied by LP.

You are trying to appeal to the cultists of Objectivism without understanding it's first about cultism for them, not education, but they get their cult-education food from LP and ARI. They don't need you unless you stop trying to compete with LP and start parroting him and championing him. That's what Diana H. did and does. the difference between the two of you is she's the bad guy and you're not. She doesn't care about education if it gets in the way of the cult. You really care--are not a cultist--but are purblind. That is why a jerk like "Damien Krieger" can make fun of you. "Damien" is just an invention of Guy Stanton on SOLOP so he can give you a one-two punch.

--Brant

Edited May 25, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

A few weeks ago someone started a thread on Solo about "Objectivist 'superiority' and arrogance", telling us about the prevailing attitude of intellectual and philosophical arrogance among Objectivists. Well, here we have a prime example of Objectivist arrogance. Objectivists have never been able to counter effectively the criticisms of Rand's theory, but here we have someone who thinks he can convince people by calling their arguments silly and elementary and who is bragging that he can answer them in a hearbeat. Of course he can't, it's pure bluff, and he won't, as he'll have a ready excuse not to do so. If you really want to spread Objectivism, this is not the way to do so, all that talk about organization and education is completely useless if you're closing your mind against any criticisms of the faith ("100% correct"!). With this kind of crusaders Objectivism is certainly doomed. Said Cassandra, but she wasn't believed anyway.

Good point, and also another reason I'd like to hear details of Phil's plans. Is Phil's reluctance to discuss certain issues, and his methods of avoiding discussing them, something that would be taught in his skills training courses? Would he train students to act as if questions from others are distractions that need not be addressed, or that they're just attempts to hijack a thread? Would he teach students to act as if all questions or challenges to Objectivism have already been successfully answered in the literature, or in other online fora ten years ago, and it's just too tiring to get bogged down in repeating it all? Will students learn to behave as if others are lazy and haven't properly studied and understood Objectivism if they disagree with any part of it? Would Objectivism's future activists be encouraged to have the attitude that they weren't put on this earth to provide free legwork for those who are too lazy to properly study and understand Objectivism?

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

Talking about content seems premature. What's the marketing plan?

[Daniel Barnes]

Brant:

>And consider the greatest AR whopper of them all: Objectivism is dangerous to fool around with or accept half way; it will destroy you if you do. Imagine having one foot in Objectivism and one in reality terrified by the correct point of reference. Of course, she was calling out for the cultists to rally around her and to turn off their minds, all the while denying it.

Quite brilliant, Brant. This is exactly where the "off" switch for the mind is located.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When people say that Objectivism is an integrated system, there are two meanings.

One of course is that it is integrated, with one branch interconnected with the others.

The other meaning is what Brant and Daniel said. The phrase "integrated system" is used to intimidate those who stray from the fold.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> details of Phil's plans....Phil's reluctance to discuss certain issues...Would he train students to act as if questions from others are distractions that need not be addressed...?

No, he'd teach them not to waste time on discussion lists populated actively by only a half dozen people and instead to spend his time presenting those views to large audiences or to intellectuals who are likely to...or in a position to...take the ideas and run with them rather than simply armchair debate them forever. He'd teach them that there are people who only ask questions all day and can drain away their time till none is left.

> Would he teach students to act as if all questions or challenges to Objectivism have already been successfully answered in the literature, or in other online fora ten years ago, and it's just too tiring to get bogged down in repeating it all?

No, if they are paying him money to conduct a course on Objectivism and answering challenges, he'd spend a month or two and prepare a syllabus in which writings and page numbers or lecture numbers where those answers can be found were researched.

But his time would be compensated or rewarded in some way. (As a teacher and writer and colleague one reward I've had is someone who really appreciates what you have to offer and doesn't act as if everything were owed to him.) [ Dragonfly, I've come to expect "loaded" or when have you stopped beating your wife questions from, which is why I generally don't answer him. ]

> Will students learn to behave as if others are lazy and haven't properly studied and understood Objectivism if they disagree with any part of it?

Hostile question - which implies I do this - ignored. The tone and attitude of your entire series of 'sarcastic' or snarky questions I greatly resent. They overstate or 'hype' my position in a exaggerated manner using words like "all" questions or disagree with "any" part of it. Which is unjust.

[Brant Gaede]

> details of Phil's plans....Phil's reluctance to discuss certain issues...Would he train students to act as if questions from others are distractions that need not be addressed...?

No, he'd teach them not to waste time on discussion lists populated actively by only a half dozen people and instead to spend his time presenting those views to large audiences or to intellectuals who are likely to...or in a position to...take the ideas and run with them rather than simply armchair debate them forever. He'd teach them that there are people who only ask questions all day and can drain away their time till none is left.

> Would he teach students to act as if all questions or challenges to Objectivism have already been successfully answered in the literature, or in other online fora ten years ago, and it's just too tiring to get bogged down in repeating it all?

No, if they are paying him money to conduct a course on Objectivism and answering challenges, he'd spend a month or two and prepare a syllabus in which writings and page numbers or lecture numbers where those answers can be found were researched.

But his time would be compensated or rewarded in some way. (As a teacher and writer and colleague one reward I've had is someone who really appreciates what you have to offer and doesn't act as if everything were owed to him.) [ Dragonfly, I've come to expect "loaded" or when have you stopped beating your wife questions from, which is why I generally don't answer him. ]

> Will students learn to behave as if others are lazy and haven't properly studied and understood Objectivism if they disagree with any part of it?

Hostile question - which implies I do this - ignored. The tone and attitude of your entire series of 'sarcastic' or snarky questions I greatly resent. They overstate or 'hype' my position in a exaggerated manner using words like "all" questions or disagree with "any" part of it. Which is unjust.

Phil, if you don't even give us the courtesy of telling us whom you are quoting, why should we go any further? It's just arrogance--or what? This is the essence of all criticism that has been directed toward you. It's just a fortress, obviously. It makes me think there is little inside your stout walls. That's what Dragonfly is objecting too. Sorry. But that seems to be the truth: Objectivism, may she always be in the right, but my Objectivism regardless! How can you be a "moral crusader" with your ulitarian justification for posting on SOLOP? If you agree with Linz's general persona and actzona and postsonsa then say so and stay there and stay away from here! Now THAT I would respect!

--Brant

Edited May 26, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Wolf DeVoon]

presenting those views to large audiences

Cool. Where?

[Jonathan]

But his time would be compensated or rewarded in some way. (As a teacher and writer and colleague one reward I've had is someone who really appreciates what you have to offer and doesn't act as if everything were owed to him.) [ Dragonfly, I've come to expect "loaded" or when have you stopped beating your wife questions from, which is why I generally don't answer him. ]

From what I've seen of Dragonfly, he is extremely intelligent and very capable of dealing with the substance of debates, including ones which cover very advanced and complex issues.

Unlike you, he's not talking about being personally compensated and rewarded. He appears to be talking about nothing but his willingness to mop the floor with you in debate. He's eager to have at it. You're not. That gives the impression that he's very confident and that you're not.

> Will students learn to behave as if others are lazy and haven't properly studied and understood Objectivism if they disagree with any part of it?

Hostile question - which implies I do this - ignored. The tone and attitude of your entire series of 'sarcastic' or snarky questions I greatly resent. They overstate or 'hype' my position in a exaggerated manner using words like "all" questions or disagree with "any" part of it. Which is unjust.

It's not a hostile question. If the basic philosophy of Objectivism is 100% correct, as you've asserted, disagreement with any part of it would imply that those disagreeing with it are lazy or haven't properly studied and understood it.

J

[Daniel Barnes]

Jonathan:

> If the basic philosophy of Objectivism is 100% correct, as you've asserted, disagreement with any part of it would imply that those disagreeing with it are lazy or haven't properly studied and understood it.

Not that I'm piling on here, but I am interested: Phil, would your proposed course teach that you had to be 100% committed to Objectivism, and that as Brant said "Objectivism is dangerous to fool around with or accept half way" and that there would be terrible consequences both personally - and ultimately, as the intro to the ITOE suggests, mankind as a whole - if people rejected it?

Edited May 26, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim:

>I laughed at the Data reference. A lot of Objectivists do feel alienated or like they are a stranger in a strange land.

Jim, I'm curious. Do you think that alienation is felt before or after they encounter the philosophy?

Do you think that if that alienation existed before, the philosophy made it worse or better?

I don't know the answer myself. It's just that an offhand remark someone made after an Objectivist conference years ago has stayed stuck in my mind. On returning to the day-to-day world after an apparently euphoric weekend, they said "Oh well. Back to unreality."

It's this sense of inversion which has stayed with me.

Daniel,

The problem comes in when people think better philosophy is going to solve their everyday issues. Objectivism has helped me project goals, maintain high standards etc. I think alienation originates before adopting the philosophy and doesn't get better unless people realize it's a psychological problem not a philosophical one.

Jim

[Philip Coates]

1. > there is little inside your stout walls...Objectivism, may she always be in the right, but my Objectivism regardless! [brant]

--- Hostile and snarky remarks ignored.

2. > his willingness to mop the floor with you in debate. He's eager to have at it. You're not. That gives the impression that he's very confident and that you're not. [Jonathan]

--- That's a formulation which is both hostile ('mop the floor with you', accusation of 'lack of confidence') and a non-sequitur. Not being willing to debate someone can mean many things, not necessarily that you don't think you can win. And you know that, Jonathan, if you were able to back off from (thinly veiled) personal attack mode and look at it objectively.

3. > If the basic philosophy of Objectivism is 100% correct, as you've asserted, disagreement with any part of it would imply that those disagreeing with it are lazy or haven't properly studied and understood it. [Jonathan]

--Another non-sequitur.

4. > would your proposed course teach that you had to be 100% committed to Objectivism, and that as Brant said "Objectivism is dangerous to fool around with or accept half way" [Daniel]

--Where on earth did you see me say that?

CONCLUSION:

Like the earlier non-substantive "attack posts" of Dragonfly, the questions above I view as hostile. And as attempts to "play gotcha". Or rhetorical "dueling" as opposed to dealing substantively with a series of complex issues. Rather than serious attempts to digest what I posted at great length in four or five quite detailed posts on this thread over the last couple of months. And also on Solo. So I'm done engaging with Dragonfly, Jonathan, Daniel, Brant in particular. And anyone else whose purpose is to think through the issue of the need to educate Objectivists to no greater degree than to undercut or attack.

I was already ready to drop this subject and leave it since I'm not gaining any value from posting on it, but when I get several people dominating the thread in recent days who reward my attempts at clarification with claims that I haven't answered every conceivable question and with abuse and whose purpose is "piling on" in an attack mode . . . then this starts to become like the "wolfpack" over on Solo.

A final word of advice to several of the more frequent posters on this list:

If you reread this thread across over a month, you will see that I spent -many hours- laying out a number of ideas and principles about education and training for Objectivists. While it is obviously not complete, people might want to consider taking some time to ***work out their own ideas and proposals***. If you don't thin there should be training for Oist, then propose what training libertarians need. But something. And then post them, instead of simply attacking mine or nitpickiing flaws or trying to lay rhetorical traps or posting "zingers" or turning into one-liner "question asking machines" which don't require much engagement.

Try to ***CREATE SOMETHING***.

Instead of trying to knock something down.

Instead of getting sarcastic or nasty or undercutting the preliminary attempts to lay down some constructive proposals by someone else.