Beyond the Philosophy

[anthony]

It's been occurring to me with greater frequency recently that there is more to Objectivism than 'just' a philosophy. Yes, it is the only one that counts; both in itself, and by comparison to all other philosophies. But more.

As a system to base one's life on, (which is what I gratefully grabbed way back then), it is comprehensive and complete. I will rush to add here that I believe that it's value is highest when, and only when one is prepared, and even joyously ready, to think for oneself, and remain the final authority in oneself. To join the dots, fill the blanks, so to speak.

Although I definitely favour the David Kelley unorthodoxy,the 'open system - closed system' debate is not my greatest concern. This me,myself,I,'thing', is an open system, and will always be. As for the rest, let those brilliant O'ists in the top echelons slug it out, and I will watch and learn.

This is a long preamble,but I'm getting there!

In another forum I have been raising the matter of cohesiveness within Objectivism - as a Culture - and responded to a poster who was toying with the idea of a 'Brand'. Well, the subject just came up again. (Interestingly, this last poster is calling it a "sub-culture", which I believe is a MSK original copyright(!) - so OL is apparently referred to often). This got me thinking once more.

Here's the nitty-gritty : if one can imagine Objectivism expanded to the nth degree - beyond its tiny core of a sub- culture, to the point of universal acceptance, would it still be called a philosophy? (Bear with me here). It just seems as though the longer one lives by O'ism, the more fundamentally (not only intellectually) certain one becomes that it is,and has forever been, the only way.

I have often marvelled that Rand did not so much create something new, as much as identify what is already there. Reality, and Reason.

They have always been 'there'; there is no other way.

To get a bit fanciful, I imagine that her intense clarity - and may I add, courage - enabled her to observe Man and his world like a camera, a microscope, and a telescope, unflinchingly seeing what is there. Of course, the sheer genius couldn't stop at that. She went on to state not only what 'is', but what 'should be'. What we have, and what we are capable of. (Damn,preaching again.)

Therefore,(whew) given the ultimate truth intrinsic in O'ism, and given that it enters the mainstream as the major influence, wouldn't this then be the Philosophy-to-end-all-philosophy ? Because, after all, it's obvious, it's common-sense, it's reality.

> I'm not sure I got my thought across clearly- can anybody else add, or subtract? <

Thanks

Tony

[Michelle]

Therefore,(whew) given the ultimate truth intrinsic in O'ism, and given that it enters the mainstream as the major influence, wouldn't this then be the Philosophy-to-end-all-philosophy ?

No. Nations rise and fall, and philosophies come and go with the ages, generally. Some survive, and some don't. The ones that do survive either do so through cultural inheritance or through surviving manuscripts, which is why Peikoff wanted to run around the world burying Ayn Rand's literature in caves, if I'm not mistaken.

[BaalChatzaf]

Here's the nitty-gritty : if one can imagine Objectivism expanded to the nth degree - beyond its tiny core of a sub- culture, to the point of universal acceptance, would it still be called a philosophy? (Bear with me here). It just seems as though the longer one lives by O'ism, the more fundamentally (not only intellectually) certain one becomes that it is,and has forever been, the only way.

It would be a worldview or weltanschaung and perhaps even a culture. Included in the Worldview would not only be the philosophy, but a bundle of memes and cultural artifacts (including literature, music, art, etc.).

Objectivism is nowhere near this stage. Christianity (the religion of a small number of strange folk) grew to acheive this status, be it for better or worse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

Tony,

I've run across the idea of a "Rand brand" before. It's mainly used by apologists of the Ayn Rand ™ Institute, but you may have met up with a poster using it a little differently.

Since Objectivism is neither a product line nor an institution, I don't think the "brand" language applies.

I think Bob K is right about the Weltanschauung thing. If the presuppositions of a philosophical system become taken for granted culture-wide, the ideas and values are no longer identified with a particular philosophy.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I only talk about the branding idea because I want to point to something that shows I am different when the inevitable questions arise:

"Aren't you part of that Rand cult that preaches all that hatred?"

"Do you really want to bomb all 1.5 billion Muslims into oblivion?"

"Why do you eat your young?"

Things like that...

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I'm not a marketing person, and I may be using the wrong terminology.

But I would call these issues image issues, not brand issues—where "image" is the broader category.

The SOLOPper who used to go on about "the Rand Brand" was that litigious nutball Kenny. From his point of view, nearly every move made by ARI or the Estate was justified, as part of an ongoing effort to "protect the brand."

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

There is a context to this terminology in Internet marketing. People are taught to "brand themselves" in order to create trust and a distinctive voice in the market. Techniques are taught for this. (Start videos with, "Hi. I'm xxxx and I own yyyyy." Things like that.)

As to Kenny, he's a very odd person, one foot in reality and one foot out, full of constant rancor over petty concerns, but with a small touch of self-control (however erratic is is).

The mental image I get of him is "half-assed."

(Sorry folks, but that's honestly the first image that comes to my mind when I think about this dude. At least it's a cut above a total screw-up. )

Technically speaking, "Ayn Rand" is a registered trademark owned by Peikoff or ARI (I'm not sure which). That's why you don't see Ayn Rand tee-shirts, but you do see "Who is John Galt?" stamped on things like that. The trademark owners actually do protect the "Rand brand," but not in the manner the boneheads mean. They protect the words "Ayn Rand" for economic purposes and a few specific publicity purposes (not all). That may not be how they intend it or would like it, but that's all they've got under the law. There is no way to "protect Rand's image" or any of that other standard crap that is preached.

Besides, an author who sells a half a million books a year decades after passing away certainly does not need her image protected by anyone. That's just games of the vain and nothing more.

Michael

[galtgulch]

I only talk about the branding idea because I want to point to something that shows I am different when the inevitable questions arise:

"Aren't you part of that Rand cult that preaches all that hatred?"

"Do you really want to bomb all 1.5 billion Muslims into oblivion?"

"Why do you eat your young?"

Things like that...

Michael

Michael, et al,

It has been proposed that if a mere three percent of an organization advocate a different position, that they can bring it about. That is undoubtedly untrue when it comes to a society composed of 300 million people, the vast majority of which is indoctrinated or simply raised in a particular religion or variants thereof. To even have three percent there would need to be 3 million who identify with Objectivism.

I would not say that will never happen after all we have reason and reality on our side while they have thousands of years of tradition and wishful thinking on theirs.

If we ever did achieve prevalence of our ideas who would care if we were accused of the things you mention because it would be obvious they were not valid.

www.campaignforliberty.com 219,058

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gulch,

Actually, I agree.

The main reason it matters right now is that before too long I am going to be selling stuff (information products) to the general public.

Crap like that is poison to sales.

Michael

[Christopher]

We don't need to enact a change in the world through Objectivism specifically. I have met many very smart, very wise individuals who hold to values that are compatible with Objectivism, but who themselves would not be considered followers of Ayn Rand. Best to note what an Objectivist really is: a person who holds to autonomy and reason. Teach the values, ignore the scripture, and there will be even greater change.