Media Mention: Objectivism / Rand / ARI

[softwareNerd]

Forbes has a short but positive article on the growing popularity of Rand.

(HT: Leitmotif)

[~Sophia~]

Meanwhile, sales of Ayn Rand titles have tripled since the early 1990s--in fact, more are being sold now than at any time in history.

Thanks in large part to book donations by ARI, next school year more than a million kids will be reading Ayn Rand in high school.

That is great to hear!

[K-Mac]

And yet another!

http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=Segy0AVmJdZc-vyMuxwgnw..

[DarkWaters]

This article is really exciting. Thanks for the link sNerd!

I found the following advice on spreading Objectivism particularly interesting:

Pick your controversies selectively, and don't be afraid to court the controversies you pick. ... Objectivists would do well to steal a page from that playbook by picking a battle on a specific issue in the area of individual rights.

I wonder how productive this would be for Objectivists to do at present. I understand that philosophical change in the cultural is a necessary prerequisite before meaningful and effective political reform. Nevertheless, perhaps there are high level principles that Objectivists could advance in a political context such as "health care is not a right" or supporting "school choice".

Anyway, the issue is if the culture is ready for this. I would not expect any noticable response from politicians or the average man on the street any time soon. However, perhaps some intellectual leaders such as editorialists, journalists, policy analysts or professors of policy may take notice. Perhaps these are activities that the D.C. branch of ARI will undertake?

Edited September 28, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Mammon]

I don't like it.

It's good that Rand is getting some positive plugs. It also makes sense that her ideas are becoming more popular, the ideas of the person usually catch on more after they die. Don't really know why, but I can take a guess and say that once the person is gone all that's left of them is their ideas they gave to the world. You can judge the ideas, not the person.

But, I don't like it because my rebelious side is kicking in. I don't want Objectivism (capital O because it's a proper noun) to become a fad. That's what Christianity is, it's just a fad and trend that catches on every 5 years. No one really practices what they preach because it eventually becomes pointless. I just don't want Objectivism to end up like that....

Plus, I kind of feel like it's "my thing" and I don't want someone stealing my thunder so to speak.

[DarkWaters]

But, I don't like it because my rebelious side is kicking in. I don't want Objectivism (capital O because it's a proper noun) to become a fad. That's what Christianity is, it's just a fad and trend that catches on every 5 years. No one really practices what they preach because it eventually becomes pointless. I just don't want Objectivism to end up like that....

Plus, I kind of feel like it's "my thing" and I don't want someone stealing my thunder so to speak.

I am confident you know that you have not provided a good reason to oppose spreading Objectivism.

Even if there is wide acceptance of Objectivism one day, there will still be plenty of need for intellectuals who will shape history. Most likely the average person on the street will not fully comprehend Objectivism, but they will recognize that it is good and that it works. The honest, hard working men of the world will look to others for leadership.

To embrace Objectivism simply to be rebellious is to cheapen the philosophy to the level of a brief trend. With this mentality, you would be fulfilling your own prediction. I am sure that you are smart enough to recognize this.

You should not become an Objectivist merely for the sake of being contrarian. Nor should you become an Objectivist because western civilization is desperate for a rational alternative to the Left and the Right. You should embrace Objectivism because it is good.

[intellectualammo]

I don't like it. [...] Plus, I kind of feel like it's "my thing" and I don't want someone stealing my thunder so to speak.

Damn, usually when you are the poster, I don't read it...but whoops...here I thought maybe that...ehh...I was wrong again in reading it...

Your "thunder"? More like a very scattered shower with you, so to speak...a comment like that I expect to hear from someone on myspace when their band suddenly gets discovered and becomes very popular, but certainly not from someone who calls themselves an Objectivist...when peoples interest in that philosophy increases x-fold.

- anyways -

I definately DO like it! I had tears gathering in my eyes reading that article. I've contributed to this program at least twice last year and after this message I will be contributing to it again, because I VALUE it so highly. I hope "my thing" becomes everyones thing...why the hell wouldn't I?

[edited to add the following:]

Don't really know why, but I can take a guess and say that once the person is gone all that's left of them is their ideas they gave to the world. You can judge the ideas, not the person.

Why do you say that? (but some of what you said does have a lot to do with why Objectivism is a closed system however...)

No one really practices what they preach because it eventually becomes pointless. I just don't want Objectivism to end up like that...

Neither do I. That's why I take a more active role in it, by not being sympathetic or sanctioning those that already have not "practiced what they preach", or those that are titling themselves as Objectivists, when their ethics is NOT Objectivist,...like the Atlas Society/TOC, Kelley, NB, etc.

Edited September 28, 2007 by intellectualammo

[softwareNerd]

I wonder how productive this would be for Objectivists to do at present.

I think a two-pronged approach makes sense: spreading the philosophy, and also pushing for some specific concrete. I think that pushing for a comprehensive set of concrete changes will not work: it would spread Objectivists thin, and it would not make much headway, because its breadth would require it to have broad philosophical support.

Activism in a narrower, concrete area means: more "effort per square inch", higher chance of co-opting non-Objectivists who want to push for the same issue (hopefully not for bad reasons), less resistance (because if you attack broadly, you have more opponents). Within any chosen area of activism, it might also make sense to take a page from the evangelical play-book, by pushing for incremental change. Doing so makes one's case stronger to people who think in terms of concretes.

Of course, while doing this, one cannot lose sight of the philosophical activism, like the books-to-schools.

[K-Mac]

I don't think it could become a "fad" like Christianity because reason and reality are involved...two things religion is and always will sorely lack. Once one has "seen the light" of Objectivism, I would imagine it would be very hard to turn back. (Sorry for the religious pun.)

[Chops]

But, I don't like it because my rebelious side is kicking in. I don't want Objectivism (capital O because it's a proper noun) to become a fad.

Applicable Ayn Rand Quote Response:

"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."

Don't let other people accepting Objectivism be the reason you abandon Objectivism. If you do, then you honestly could have never called yourself an Objectivist. Remember Roark: "But I don't think of you."

Others accepting (understanding, as opposed to blind acceptance) Objectivism is a positive thing, even if some of them are going to be fake and faddy about it. Undoubtedly there will be people that accept something because their friends are doing it, but those aren't people worthing giving any second's thought.

I don't think it could become a "fad" like Christianity because reason and reality are involved...two things religion is and always will sorely lack. Once one has "seen the light" of Objectivism, I would imagine it would be very hard to turn back. (Sorry for the religious pun.)

Oh they can. It involves actively evading reality, but people do it. And they justify it by saying they "grew out of" Objectivism and "Ayn Rand's cult," without specifying details. Though, as far as I can tell, it's usually people who don't want to live as morally as they should, and Objectivism isn't a very "forgiving" philosphy like Christianity is. One can't just say "I'm sorry" and all is forgiven by an Objectivist, like it is for a Christian. It's easier (read: comforting) to think that you'll see that loved one again after they die.

Some people will abandon it, and to that I say: Their Loss.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Chops

[K-Mac]

Some people will abandon it, and to that I say: Their Loss.

Yes, their loss! I can't imagine taking a step backwards at this point and it makes me sad to know that there are those that do. Oh well, I'm happy for me that I discovered it and I plan to learn more and more!

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Yes, their loss! I can't imagine taking a step backwards at this point and it makes me sad to know that there are those that do. Oh well, I'm happy for me that I discovered it and I plan to learn more and more!

Looks like you won't be leaving Front Range Objectivism any time soon then, so my carpool arrangements are safe.

I suspect many of those who "grew out of" Objectivism never truly understood it. They may have been the rationalistic types that I like to refer to as "Randroids." (I know the term gets used by the Kelleyites on what they call "orthodox" Objectivists but I figure it fits much better on the rationalists since they have disengaged their critical thought processes in favor of robotically following a dogma.) In which case it is probably a positive good that they "outgrew" their misunderstanding of Objectivism--alas they outgrew it the wrong way.

If it gets to the point where Objectivism is very common, to the point where most people claim the status but aren't "hard core" (in a fashion analogous to the way most people call themselves Christian but do not really know what that entails), that would be sub-optimal of course, but it at least would mean we'll be able to win more arguments with them. (Just as any consistent Christian will win arguments with the inconsistent ones.)

Actually we'd need a term for someone who accepts the loosely worded tenets but hasn't really thought things through. Objectivish? Fuzzy Objectivist? Quasi-Objectivist? (I don't want to use pseudo-Objectivist; that's for the folks who claim to be Objectivist intellectuals but aren't.)

[K-Mac]

Looks like you won't be leaving Front Range Objectivism any time soon then, so my carpool arrangements are safe.

Objectivish? Fuzzy Objectivist? Quasi-Objectivist?

Yes, your carpool arrangements are safe and I vote for Objectivish.

[Chops]

Actually we'd need a term for someone who accepts the loosely worded tenets but hasn't really thought things through. Objectivish? Fuzzy Objectivist? Quasi-Objectivist? (I don't want to use pseudo-Objectivist; that's for the folks who claim to be Objectivist intellectuals but aren't.)

Libertarian.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Libertarian.

I thought of that but then I realize a lot of Libertarians aren't even that close. A goodly number of them are but not nearly enough to save that party from Blame America First idiocy (are you listening Murray Rothbard?!)

[treddeni]

Sometimes it's hard to believe in the world and it's future, but not after reading this:

"Meanwhile, sales of Ayn Rand titles have tripled since the early 1990s--in fact, more are being sold now than at any time in history."

[Mammon]

Applicable Ayn Rand Quote Response:

"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."

Don't let other people accepting Objectivism be the reason you abandon Objectivism. If you do, then you honestly could have never called yourself an Objectivist. Remember Roark: "But I don't think of you."

That kind of grinds my gears.

All my life I've done "my own thing" it's not about being non-conformist, just trying to be an individual. I think I know more about that ideal then anyone here because I've spent years in the punk rock scences and circles. I know first-hand what Rand is talking about here. So it kind of pisses me off a little when I get that quote thrown in my face, when I already get what it means. A lot deeper then most.

I never said I was going to abandon it. I just don't want it to turn into the latest trend or anti-trend.

I value Objectivism a lot because I found it on my own. It's more of a self-made thing, then a "Hey... this isn't popular!" thing. Maybe I'm mistrusting of other people too. In High School people would make fun of me for just about everything I did. Then a year later they were all doing the same thing, and for some reason, they never made the connection that I was doing that first, on my own free will. I was just treated like someone else following a fad.

It's a horriable feeling to watch something you love turn into a brainless fad for other people. That's where I'm coming from on this.

The article also worries me because I know people will find a way to label Objectivism as something like Scientology (they already do) and that will become the popular view of Objectivism. It can be damaging.

[Kori]

*STAB STAB STAB* Mammon's dead! Hurrah!

Oh...I don't actually have anything to add other than that.

[Chops]

So it kind of pisses me off a little when I get that quote thrown in my face, when I already get what it means. A lot deeper then most.

My intention was not to offend. Certainly you see how your statement sounded very anti-conformist for the sake of anti-conformity. Indeed this sentiment continues on your description.

I value Objectivism a lot because I found it on my own. It's more of a self-made thing, then a "Hey... this isn't popular!" thing. Maybe I'm mistrusting of other people too. In High School people would make fun of me for just about everything I did. Then a year later they were all doing the same thing, and for some reason, they never made the connection that I was doing that first, on my own free will. I was just treated like someone else following a fad.

...

It's a horriable feeling to watch something you love turn into a brainless fad for other people.

Why? Who cares what others do* and for whatever reason they do it? What do you care if others think you're following a fad? Why is it relevant to your life and your actions what others think? That's the point of my post: you're letting the opinions of random people affect you.

As stated, you say you don't care what others think, but yet you let the opinions of others affect you.

*Of course, with the qualification that those others are not violating rights.

[intellectualammo]

The article also worries me because I know people will find a way to label Objectivism as something [...]

They "will find"?

I've already encountered it every time I read or hear people saying "Orthodox" Objectivism...

Hello! There is ONLY Objectivism. I had never encountered that before until just recently. In the way that I have seen it used so far on another forum, "Orthodox" refers to Ayn Rand/Peikoff/ARI "camp"...which IS Objectivism. Anthing that differs from that cannot be called Objectivism. Those that are aligning themselves with Kelley, Atlas Society/TOC, etc...you are the ones responsible for creating this "schism" because you deviate from Objectivism, particularily it's ethics, and continue to call yourselves Objectivists, instead of something else. There are no camps, but you are trying to make it seem like there are. There aren't. There is only Objectivism. No camps. One closed philosophic system.