Question: What is the best thing a philosopher can do to further mankind

[sjw]

A philosophy needs to be sold to make an impact.

Any tract on competent selling says you sell with emotion and justify with reason.

If you look at Rand's career, that's exactly what she did. She did her fiction, then she justified it with essays.

Rand's goal was to project the ideal man in fiction. It was a personal goal, she wasn't planning on how to change the world. Her non-fiction naturally resulted from her method and novel ideas and her desire to do what she could to help change the world, but I don't think she intended to "sell with emotion and justify with reason." She just wanted to write fiction, to project her ideal man, and the rest came naturally.

...

George has a point, though, about staying true to your nature. If strong emotion is not your thing and you want to save the world, then ally yourself with people who do know how to navigate strong emotions in others.

Well this is a bit off topic; I wasn't intending to ask for personal advice. But personally, I'd agree that if someone isn't passionate about something, then they probably shouldn't be at the forefront.

Shayne

[sjw]

My problem with the Randian model -- it worked great for Rand; I'm talking about those who attempt to emulate her -- is the conviction, common among O'ists, that we need to renovate people's beliefs from the ground up, starting with epistemology and metaphysics before moving on to ethics and finally politics. In truth, most people don't give a damn about the fine points of philosophy, and it's not necessary to persuade them of the hierarchical nature of concepts and other technical matters in order to demonstrate the value of freedom.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Generally speaking, people will take certain political ideas seriously when they believe those ideas will serve their interests. The classic problem here is the tension between short-term and long-term interests. We can shout from the hills that there is no conflict, but in fact there frequently is. People dependent on government, or people who profit from government, will not be receptive to the notion that we should do away with the Big Tit.

For people who have no moral bone in their body this may be true, but for the rest, I think an appeal to morality can work, and what is more, it should work, and should be expected to work, and for those who it doesn't work with, they should be shamed and shunned for acting like animals.

Anyone seriously interested in libertarian strategy (I mean this in the broad sense to include O'ists) must think long and hard about which goals are realistic and which are not. If you set out to convert the "masses" in the hope of electing a libertarian (or O'ist) president within the next few decades, then you are daydreaming. This is not going to happen. We will always be a minority relative to the general population, but minorities (such as the abolitionists in antebellum America) can exert considerable influence. Serious strategic thinkers should begin by developing a theory of political leverage, and this is where a study of history can help. Many political movements throughout history have exercised an influence far beyond their numbers.

I think the main goal is implied by this brilliant insight in your "Pragmatists vs. Ideologues":

The most serious error of pragmatism is its lack of appreciation for the role of ideology in

social perception. By "social perception," is meant how we "perceive" the world of social wholes (or

entities), such as "state," "society," "church," and "the market." In truth, we do not perceive social

entities with our eyes; rather, we understand them with our minds. Social entities, as Hayek says, are

"constituted" by the mind. They are not physical things, like rocks and trees and birds, but are mental

constructs of abstract relationships.

So the primary question is, I think, how to get more buy-in on the libertarian way of perceiving. And I think the rub here is and has been: there is no libertarian way, if you look out you see a bunch of contradictory ways. E.g. anarchists vs. minarchists. There's no way to integrate that "perception" since it is a contradiction. In my opinion, until we bridge these contradictions we cannot be a political force.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

"...there is no libertarian way..."

Precisely the problem. I assume you were too young to be involved with the original formation of the party in the mid to late 60's, but there was a clear identification of principles at that point in time.

Now...there is a problem because of both foreign policy issues and "social morality issues".

You make good points here.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

I just posted an excerpt from "The Tao of Strategy" , an unpublished article that I wrote in 1996 and used as the basis for a number of talks. I posted this on a separate thread because of its length.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand's goal was to project the ideal man in fiction. It was a personal goal, she wasn't planning on how to change the world. Her non-fiction naturally resulted from her method and novel ideas and her desire to do what she could to help change the world, but I don't think she intended to "sell with emotion and justify with reason." She just wanted to write fiction, to project her ideal man, and the rest came naturally.

Shayne,

That's one of the things she said--later in her career. That's certainly not all she said--not by far.

You should read her letters. Rand considered herself a propagandist, including an expert at presenting propaganda in fiction. Here are a couple of quotes for you:

Letter to Gerald Loeb, June 3, 1944, Letters, p. 138:

Now THIS is your $64 question: "What's the idea for your next novel? A bestseller? Or a propaganda story to please you?" Are you baiting me or is this serious? Do you really think anyone can sit down and say: "Now I'm going to write a bestseller?" Why, of course it's going to be "a propaganda story to please me." Just like The Fountainhead. And if it becomes a bestseller—that is what will make it sell—that it pleased me.

Letter to Gerald Loeb, August 21, 1945, Letters, p. 231:

I think I have written to you once that the art of integrating propaganda, that is, an abstract theme, with a concrete story, is the hardest of all arts. I honestly don't know anyone who can do it at the moment—except myself.

From The Art of Fiction, edited by Boeckmann, pp 68-69:

In the original scene, my best touch of characterization is the following exchange. Keating says, "How do you always manage to decide?'' and Roark answers, "How can you let others decide for you?"

These two lines convey the essence of the two characters. In the rewritten scene, I dropped them.*

I want to pause on these lines in order to show how to integrate philosophical propaganda into fiction.

Such an issue as "I always decide for myself" versus "I go by the opinions of others" is extremely wide. If two characters started discussing it out of a clear sky, that would be sheer propaganda. But in the above scene, the two men are stating an abstract issue as it applies to their own problems and to the concrete situation before the reader's eyes. The abstract discussion is natural in the context, and, therefore, almost unnoticeable.

This is the only way to state abstract principles in fiction. If the concrete illustration is given in the problems and actions of the story, you can afford to have a character state a wide principle. If, however, the action does not support it, that wide principle will stick out like a propaganda poster.

How much philosophy you can present without turning into a propagandist, as opposed to a proper fiction writer, depends on how much of an event the philosophy is covering.

* Note from MSK: The rewritten scene is not quoted here--it was rewritten as an instructional example of how awful her book would be if she softened Roark;s character.

It is a mistake to rely only on her statements in The Romantic Manifesto, when (from what I have observed) she was engaged in "formatting" her public image to fit the philosophy she had created and the movement around it. Here is one last quote just to get a sense of her roots with propaganda:

Letter to Isabel Paterson, May 8, 1948, Letters, p. 214:

The political intention which I gather from the recent writings of Catholics is quite clear to me. And I am very good at catching that sort of intention—I was trained in it by experts, I have seen it in Soviet universities.

There are all kinds of other quotes I remember that show Rand was very much interested in changing (or saving) the world, that she intimately knew and practiced propaganda for that end, and that she injected this intention into her fiction knowingly.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

I have always been clear about this in her personality.

"I was trained in it by experts, I have seen it in Soviet universities."

She had great teachers and great examples to model her mind and writing after.

Propaganda for the good works to advance the good.

If you substitute "rhetoric" for "propaganda" you get the Aristotelian model. Essentially, if good and evil are armed with the same tools, good will win out.

She owed more to Aristotle than she was aware even aware.

Adam

[sjw]

Fascinating quotes Michael, thanks (I don't agree with the approach but it is interesting).

Shayne

[sbeaulieu]

He had a lot of visual props to back up his message. He used stories to illustrate his points.

He presented words and images that stimulated all five senses, not just abstract concepts or remote examples. He asked direct questions, did not talk down to his public but told them to think for themselves, was alternately reasonable and whispered and thundered.

Michael,

This is an extremely good point to emphasize. Although I don't have the numbers, I'm relatively certain that the vast majority of people don't ponder philosophy on a daily basis. Personally, I've been dabbling in Objectivism for a few years, and frankly, the language used by most in here is above my head on the nuts and bolts. Many make good use of ideas and terms I'm familiar with, so I'm making due. The rest will come with time so that I can be a competent contributor in the higher discussions.

As an instructor, I faced a similar dilemna in getting the "message" across with highly technical terms and practices. To combat it, I literally drew out comparisons using simple pictures. By using an analogy that the student was familiar with, I was able to lump complex processes using one illustration. Seeing the light come on was awesome. It validated that that approach worked. I see philosophy being no different. For me, fiction works well to lump complex philosophical processes.

~ Shane

[Roger Bissell]

Let us suppose for sake of argument that ARI has the best strategy. Let us suppose they have the best thinkers, and the thinkers have thought seriously about where the lever and fulcrum should be put. This isn't just one activity, it is a constellation of them which together are *calculated for maximum effect*. Now if you have all that donor money, you damn well better calculate where the lever and fulcrum go. And if you believe in ARI's vision, and if you have the means, then you very probably ought to donate or contribute to their strategy to at least some degree -- they probably fit in your rational value hierarchy somewhere.

Suppose for the sake of argument that one or more OL readers believe that Chris Sciabarra has done more than any of the Objectivist groups to promote understanding and insight into Rand's philosophy, and that her philosophy is the best hope of "mankind." So, "if you have the means, then you very probably ought to donate or contribute to" Chris, to help him through his current dire financial and medical situation, in which he finds himself through no fault of his own. Benevolent assistance to someone as noble and great as Chris should "probably fit in your rational value hierarchy somewhere."

I have put my money where my values are. I encourage others to do the same for Chris, if they agree.

REB

P.S. -- I echo George's most recently expressed sentiments about Shayne's various comments. I would reply to Shayne, if he had given any kind of substantive reply to my extensive remarks. But he just dismissively waves his hand and says he got a "bullseye" in criticizing my supposed subjectivist ("kumbaya," "hippie") form of objective self-interest, while I simply misunderstood him. So be it. Perhaps I should be careful what I wish for. :-/

[sjw]

"...there is no libertarian way..."

Precisely the problem. I assume you were too young to be involved with the original formation of the party in the mid to late 60's, but there was a clear identification of principles at that point in time.

Now...there is a problem because of both foreign policy issues and "social morality issues".

You make good points here.

Adam

Adam: If I were part of an elite power structure and wanted to prevent a nascent movement from taking root, I'd find some way to instill precisely the kinds of discord that belong to the "libertarian" movement.

I'm not claiming there is a conspiracy theory behind this. But we do know that the FBI and CIA have infiltrated political groups before. The FBI even had their wrist slapped over it by Congress. And Cass Sunstein recently published an article about how the government should infiltrate non-mainstream groups to try to neutralize them (his strategy would suggest the easy, cost-effective tactic of planting moles in every popular forum or blog). So I don't think we can rule this out as a possible cause.

Note that you do not even need an overt conspiracy by the government to sow discord. Even a lone individual can decide that he hates libertarian ideas and wants to sow disunity among them. I can imagine a deranged mentality getting a thrill or power-trip from misdirecting the energy of people like George Smith. So in the end it may not matter much whether there is a concerted conspiracy by the government, or whether it's a "lone nut" conspiracy, the methods of detection and evasion would be the same.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

I moved in some extremely radical circles in the 60's and 70's. Suffice it to say that the "plants" and infiltrators were not that hard to discover. They were then encysted

and fed disinformation.

I do not believe the Libertarian movement ever rose to the level that would trigger the type of effort that you describe. However, I cannot say that

with 100% certainty.

Adam

[sjw]

P.S. -- I echo George's most recently expressed sentiments about Shayne's various comments. I would reply to Shayne, if he had given any kind of substantive reply to my extensive remarks. But he just dismissively waves his hand and says he got a "bullseye" in criticizing my supposed subjectivist ("kumbaya," "hippie") form of objective self-interest, while I simply misunderstood him. So be it. Perhaps I should be careful what I wish for. :-/

I already anticipated the kumbaya nonsense in my very first post and unrequested it, you are the one most loudly harping on it and it is annoying. It is already repeated ad nauseam elsewhere and I don't even disagree with it even though you seem to want to pretend I do. Yes, you should pursue your rational self-interest. I won't repeat all the ways ad nauseam how one should do it and why it's effective. Yes, I approve of the trombone and even admire you for what you've done with the CD (no small feat to raise a talented family like that). Selene thinks there's cognitive dissonance in this but to me that just indicates that he has no idea what I'm talking about.

It is a separate, abstract question regarding what principles/ideas/strategies best drive positive change into society. Haven't gotten to George's "Tao" article yet but his other ones were right on point. I'll bet he has a pile of other articles up his sleeve I should read.

Shayne

[sjw]

I moved in some extremely radical circles in the 60's and 70's. Suffice it to say that the "plants" and infiltrators were not that hard to discover. They were then encysted and fed disinformation.

Fascinating. Might I ask what circles? I understand if you don't want to say.

I do not believe the Libertarian movement ever rose to the level that would trigger the type of effort that you describe. However, I cannot say that with 100% certainty.

I think it's definitely big enough that they would care. But perhaps it doesn't have the qualities that they care about. Perhaps the FBI and the CIA are really Good Guys and don't care about people who just want the NIF principle to be enforced. Or perhaps they've noticed that we automatically neutralize ourselves already.

Shayne

[Selene]

I moved in some extremely radical circles in the 60's and 70's. Suffice it to say that the "plants" and infiltrators were not that hard to discover. They were then encysted and fed disinformation.

Fascinating. Might I ask what circles? I understand if you don't want to say.

I do not believe the Libertarian movement ever rose to the level that would trigger the type of effort that you describe. However, I cannot say that with 100% certainty.

I think it's definitely big enough that they would care. But perhaps it doesn't have the qualities that they care about. Perhaps the FBI and the CIA are really Good Guys and don't care about people who just want the NIF principle to be enforced. Or perhaps they've noticed that we automatically neutralize ourselves already.

Shayne

No problem now. SDS, various anarchist groups, one of the few white men who was allowed near Malcom X in Harlem. 5%ers, Panthers and I am pretty sure I was in some spots with a member of the Weathermen on one or two occasions. There were some other splinter groups which shall remain anonymous. NY City was a wonderfully alive and radical place.

Attending NB was especially rewarding to me.

As to your second point, "Perhaps the FBI and the CIA are really Good Guys and don't care about people who just want the NIF principle to be enforced." I have no problem with the FBI and the CIA since I have known some really good people in both agencies.

However, the FBI did visit my parents house, on a Sunday (!) evening looking for me when I was between 16 and 17 and in college. We formed SFS, Student's for a Free Society as an opposition force to SDS. It was composed of primarily Randians, some Young Americans for Freedom folks and libertarians. I always thought that the alleged reason for their visit was bullshit.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> [Chris Sciabarra's] current dire financial and medical situation, in which he finds himself through no fault of his own.

Roger, can you explain what this situation is? I had heard nothing.

[Roger Bissell]

> [Chris Sciabarra's] current dire financial and medical situation, in which he finds himself through no fault of his own.

Roger, can you explain what this situation is? I had heard nothing.

Sure, Phil. Go here for a brief notice by Marsha Enright: My link

Also, several days ago, I received a very eloquent appeal that provided more detail and rationale for sending help to Chris. He does not want this appeal to appear in a public forum, so if you'd like to read and perhaps respond to it, please send ~your~ email address to me at rebissell[AT]aol[dot]com, and I'll forward that email to you. (That invitation extends to everyone reading this, not just Phil.)

Best to all,

REB

[Brant Gaede]

The link doesn't work, Roger.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

The link doesn't work, Roger.

--Brant

Sorry, Brant. I just slung (slinged?) the URL into the post without setting up a link, and when I posted it, a link appeared in the post, and it worked, so I assumed it would work for everyone else, too.

I've fixed it now, I think. Let me know if it still doesn't work.

REB

[Brant Gaede]

The link doesn't work, Roger.

--Brant

Sorry, Brant. I just slung (slinged?) the URL into the post without setting up a link, and when I posted it, a link appeared in the post, and it worked, so I assumed it would work for everyone else, too.

I've fixed it now, I think. Let me know if it still doesn't work.

REB

No joy. Look, if I remember from over six months ago, the Enright link contains PayPal info, and that may be obsolete too. People should simply email you for the appeal as that's much stronger than Enright because of who wrote it and because the situation is now much more urgent.

--Brant

Edited September 18, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Philip Coates]

Link still doesn't work, Roger. I'm emailing you...

Phil

[Frediano]

This question is for philosophers and those interested in philosophy: Supposing we had a collection of philosophic geniuses at our disposal, what task would they have to set themselves on in order to best further the advancement of Man on Earth?

This question is in "politics" just because I didn't see a better place for it, but the answer need not be political. Further, an Objectivist might be inclined to answer "Bad question, philosophers should know that they should only be concerned with their own self-interest." So suppose also that this group of geniuses believe that it is in their own interest to advance mankind in the best way they can devise.

Shayne

Orqanize a telethon for Paternalistic Megalomania?

With their help, we could finally find a cure.

[sjw]

Orqanize a telethon for Paternalistic Megalomania?

With their help, we could finally find a cure.

I take it you don't watch the news.

Shayne

[Frediano]

Orqanize a telethon for Paternalistic Megalomania?

With their help, we could finally find a cure.

I take it you don't watch the news.

Shayne

We don't hold telethons for Paternalistic Megalomania: we hold elections.

[sjw]

Orqanize a telethon for Paternalistic Megalomania?

With their help, we could finally find a cure.

I take it you don't watch the news.

Shayne

We don't hold telethons for Paternalistic Megalomania: we hold elections.

We don't hold telethons for Paternalistic Megalomania: we hold people at gunpoint, take their money, and use it to make the world a "better" place, all while pretending that the elections confer consent to take such criminal actions.

What you think this has to do with the thread at hand, who knows.

Shayne

[Frediano]

Orqanize a telethon for Paternalistic Megalomania?

With their help, we could finally find a cure.

I take it you don't watch the news.

Shayne

We don't hold telethons for Paternalistic Megalomania: we hold elections.

We don't hold telethons for Paternalistic Megalomania: we hold people at gunpoint, take their money, and use it to make the world a "better" place, all while pretending that the elections confer consent to take such criminal actions.

What you think this has to do with the thread at hand, who knows.

Shayne

It was a direct response to the command:

So suppose also that this group of geniuses believe that it is in their own interest to advance mankind in the best way they can devise.

I have only one personal moral axiom against which I weigh the thoughts and actions of myself and others: "One skin, one driver."

That does not include 'my skin uber alles', nor does it include 'most skins uber alles.'

Neither does it preclude free association, though it does preclude forced association.

I can sleep well with that axiom guiding my personal moral and ethical decisions.

So, when someone starts out with the must have it premise of "geniuses who beleive that it is in their own interest to advance MANKIND in the best way they can devise," I recognize the self-awarded necessary carte blanch at the foundation of every million corpses ever found rotting under the Sun: "We do this not for us, but for MANKIND."

It is clearly a sign of

paternalistic

pa·ter·nal·ism (p-tûrn-lzm)

n.

A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.

pa·ternal·ist adj. & n.

pa·ternal·istic adj.

pa·ternal·isti·cal·ly adv.

megalomania

meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a (mg-l-mn-, -mny)

n.

1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

as in, 'advance MANKIND in the best way they can devise.'

and the balance of free people, when they sniff this running loose AGAIN, need to get out the Lysol and CLorox and assert "Hey geniuses: one skin is enough. Run it well."

Fatherland: See 20's Germany and the birth of the following song:

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,

Über alles in der Welt,

Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze

Brüderlich zusammenhält.

Von der Maas bis an die Memel,

Von der Etsch bis an den Belt,

|: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,

Über alles in der Welt! :|

Germany, Germany above all,

Above all in the world,

When, for protection and defence, it always

takes a brotherly stand together.

From the Meuse to the Memel,

From the Adige to the Belt,

|: Germany, Germany above everything,

Above everything in the world. :|

Second stanza

Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,

Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang

Sollen in der Welt behalten

Ihren alten schönen Klang,

Und zu edler Tat begeistern

Unser ganzes Leben lang.

|: Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,

Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang! :|

German women, German loyalty,

German wine and German song

Shall retain in the world

Their old beautiful chime

And inspire us to noble deeds

During all of our life.

|: German women, German loyalty,

German wine and German song! :|

Third stanza

(Germany's National Anthem)

Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit

Für das deutsche Vaterland!

Danach lasst uns alle streben

Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!

Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit

Sind des Glückes Unterpfand;

|: Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes,

Blühe, deutsches Vaterland.

Unity and justice and freedom

For the German fatherland!

For these let us all strive

Brotherly with heart and hand!

Unity and justice and freedom

Are the pledge of fortune;

|: Bloom in this fortune's blessing,

Bloom, German fatherland. :|

"Das Lied der Deutschen" or "The Song of the Germans"), has been used wholly or partially as the national anthem of Germany since 1922. 20's Germany Volksgemeinschaft + dead German phioposophers from the 1800s = the dung heap.

Is it possible to dig up dead German philosophers from the 1800s-- 'the 'geniuses' who yet foul the body politic today with their 'for mankind' nonsense -- and freshly hang and bury them a second time, for all the damage they have done to actual living breathing individuals, in the name of their God "S"ociety? As in, "S"ociety is God, and the state is its proper church. social scientology-- the vampire religion that dare not ever speak its own name in the light of day.

regards,

Fred

Edited September 25, 2010 by Frediano