The True Believer Revisited

[Selene]

This is the "bias" that this magazine states in it's About Us section, but the article about Hoffer's "true-believer" concept is relevant in today's political environment and certainly has been an issue in the Objectivist movement since I joined it in 1960 or so.

"Philosophy Now is a news-stand magazine for everyone interested in ideas. It aims to corrupt innocent citizens by convincing them that philosophy can be exciting, worthwhile and comprehensible, and also to provide some light and enjoyable reading matter for those already ensnared by the muse, such as philosophy students and academics.

Philosophy Now appears every two months. It contains articles on all aspects of Western philosophy, as well as book reviews, letters, news, cartoons, and the occasional short story.

Since its small-scale launch in Britain in 1991, Philosophy Now has grown to become the most widely-read philosophy periodical in the English language. It is now available from bookstores and news-stands throughout Britain, the USA, Canada and Australia. Philosophy Now is independent of all groups and has no intentional editorial bias except for a passionate conviction that philosophy is a Good Thing."

http://www.philosophynow.org/archive/articles/34madigan1.htm

I would be interested in everyone's thoughts on this article.

Adam

[sjw]

I would be interested in everyone's thoughts on this article.

There is no such thing as "psychology of mass movements". I stopped reading there. Insults and precision are preferable to politically-correct nonsense.

Shayne

[Mike11]

I largely agree. When I look at the problem of fanaticism by trying to step inside a belief, let's say Islamic Suicide Bombing, then I'm tempted to simply see it as a philosophical thing, a product of the chain of Islamic thought. When I think sociologically though it is more clear that it is about alienation than "Philosophy".

This review of Firefly you may like as it talks about the philosophy of a fanatic as well.

For the revolutionary, Camus notes, values are "only to be found at the end of history. Until then there is no suitable criterion on which to base a judgement of value. One must act and live in terms of the future. All morality becomes provisional."

There is no such thing as "psychology of mass movements". I stopped reading there. Insults and precision are preferable to politically-correct nonsense.

I have to say, that after 5 attempted replies to this, I'm no longer able to rationally respond to this kind of right thinkingness. Crimestop is a useful cognitive skill for too many Objectivists.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Mike11

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I suggest you take a look at this: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini.

Internet marketers make fortunes off of this and dictators rise to power doing the same things. It has been that way throughout human history.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Shayne,

I suggest you take a look at this: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini.

Internet marketers make fortunes off of this and dictators rise to power doing the same things. It has been that way throughout human history.

Michael

Or, go back and read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.

I reread it recently - and continue to be positively impressed by the analysis.

Bill

[syrakusos]

... but the article about Hoffer's "true-believer" concept is relevant in today's political environment and certainly has been an issue in the Objectivist movement since I joined it in 1960 or so.

Thanks for the link. I re-read The True Believer occasionally. I was impressed with it when it was recommended in The Objectivist Newsletter 40+ years ago and I remain so today. Much of what he says applies to Objectivists, of course. Objectivism has always appealed to a kind of authoritarian personality in search of absolute knowledge. From the Law of Identity, the path to a pre-emptive strike on Teheran is a short (goose) step. The worst thing you can say among some Objectivists is "I don't know." One of Hoffer's points is that the True Belief offers an explanation for failure. Another is that there is a common mythology to these ideologies:

• There once was a perfect state.
  
• The devil stole it from us.
  
• If we all pull together, we can build a glorious new future,
  
• though, not in our lifetimes, but for our children.
  

A true believer refuses to consider anything he does not already agree with. Agreement starts with emotional concordance and from that position, the "logical" and "factual" arguments are added. That is why true believers can change ideologies. They make an emotional commitment first. Then, they justify it with "facts" and "reasons."

A true belief, of course, is always a complete philosophical system. There is no need to think beyond it. There is no "beyond."

Edited February 11, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[Selene]

... but the article about Hoffer's "true-believer" concept is relevant in today's political environment and certainly has been an issue in the Objectivist movement since I joined it in 1960 or so.

Thanks for the link. I re-read The True Believer occasionally. I was impressed with it when it was recommended in The Objectivist Newsletter 40+ years ago and I remain so today. Much of what he says applies to Objectivists, of course. Objectivism has always appealed to a kind of authoritarian personality in search of absolute knowledge. From the Law of Identity, the path to a pre-emptive strike on Teheran is a short (goose) step. The worst thing you can say among some Objectivists is "I don't know." One of Hoffer's points is that the True Belief offers an explanation for failure. Another is that there is a common mythology to these ideologies:

• There once was a perfect state.
  
• The devil stole it from us.
  
• If we all pull together, we can build a glorious new future,
  
• though, not in our lifetimes, but for our children.
  

A true believer refuses to consider anything he does not already agree with. Agreement starts with emotional concordance and from that position, the "logical" and "factual" arguments are added. That is why true believers can change ideologies. They make an emotional commitment first. Then, they justify it with "facts" and "reasons."

A true belief, of course, is always a complete philosophical system. There is no need to think beyond it. There is no "beyond."

Unfortunately, one aspect of the ojectivist movement that I saw was that element, but it always happens with movements. I was positive most of her ideas would last and that they would germinate. Philosophical Johnny Appleseeds will suceed. The fact that there is a Libertarian Party, even though it is mostly useless at being smart and building locally, the fact that this forum exists is proof of sucess and the fact that all of her words are continually read is sucessful.

I am reasonably sure that most "Objectivists" do not want to engage in politics. I love politics because I define it diferently than the pejorative banal definition in use today.

As I mentioned to Chris Grieb in a phone call when I first joined this forum Allan Drury is a great writer who was beautifully skilled at writing about polics, with breath and specificity. I think most Objectivist like the sausage in the paella, but just don't like watching it made.

I can understand it, but I would no more cede the sphere of philosohy to the left or the politics to either the left or the riight. It is an individual choice and I will always try to persaude people to get involved. I especially target Objectivists because I know their essential qualities and most definitely think way outside the box, the trapezoid and some mathmatical four sided three dimensional representations that badically mesmerize me.

I thank you for your comments.

Adam

[Daniel Barnes]

Objectivism has always appealed to a kind of authoritarian personality in search of absolute knowledge. From the Law of Identity, the path to a pre-emptive strike on Teheran is a short (goose) step. The worst thing you can say among some Objectivists is "I don't know."

Nice summation. And why do you think this is the case, Michael...?