Why hasn't Objectivism won already?

[neuromancer]

The answer lies implicitly in all of Rands novels. Society is shaped like an upside-down pyramid. The few, the strongest, the smartest, the best, support the unknowing, uncaring, unthinking majority. This is the direct opposite of so-called "communism" where the majority is the base of the pyramid and supports the greedy capitalists.

I also agree that most people are NOT philosophers. Questions such as these never enter their minds. Most people couldn't care less whether or not taxes go up or down, if microsoft goes bankrupt, or Japan is wiped from the face of the planet. To most people the most important things are sports, cell phones, and music videos.

[source]

The answer lies implicitly in all of Rands novels.  Society is shaped like an upside-down pyramid.  The few, the strongest, the smartest, the best, support the unknowing, uncaring, unthinking majority.  This is the direct opposite of so-called "communism" where the majority is the base of the pyramid and supports the greedy capitalists.

It doesn't take a single soul to support a greedy capitalist, except himself. I'm sure you meant to say the bureaucracy or the politicians?

[neuromancer]

It doesn't take a single soul to support a greedy capitalist, except himself. I'm sure you meant to say the bureaucracy or the politicians?

Yes I understand this. But from the Marxian point of view or philosophy, they would argue that the majority support the minority ie the capitalists, under a capitalist system. Obviously we know that under socialism, Half the population toils while half works for the bureaucracy.

[mailegreene]

Will a moderator please warn BIGBANGSingh. He has provided no argument for his position as you can obviously see by reading his last few posts. Also, I find this sentence to be completely irrelevant, if not a cheap shot directed at Objectivism: "It's time to recognize that being an Objectivist doesn't make you a good exercise physiologist. " No, being an Objectivist does not necessarily make you a good exercise physiologist. But think of the huge advantage you have in the fact that, as an Objectivist, you take reason and logic seriously.

[the tortured one]

You do realize that this thread is close to a year old, right?

[Hamlet]

Why are they still unconvinced? I can think of two categories of reason. The first is to do with the philosophical lack of coherence of the objectivist position, and the second with 'objectivists' themselves.

The objectivist or rationalist position is untenable on many different levels, but I'll take just two. First of all, the rationalist position is essentially one which relies upon reason and the evidence of the senses. If the senses were relied upon exclusively, no one would ever have set sail for the horizon. Time and again, rational positions adopted through reasoning from sensory evidence have been found found to be untrue, superstitious and childlike in their lack of understanding.

Associated to this, in every area where human endeavour, philosophy and science is at the cutting edge and pushing human understanding to its limits, evidence mounts that the 'classic' rational statement "A is A" (an overblown concept if ever there was one) is a fallacy. Quantum physics is the obvious case in point, where time and again distinctions have been made between local and non-local realities, and the importance of the influence of the observer in establishing just what 'A' is or is not. Heresy of heresies, these findings also support what mystics (seekers after truth who have heroically devoted lifetimes to the study of life and its meaning, by the way) have been trying to tell the rest of us for millennia.

This brings up another of objectivism's bete noirs - the spectre of relativism. This is unfortunate for a philosophy which apparently sets so much store by the freedom of the individual: relativism is a liberation from the old certainties which kept the mass of people quietly accepting the irrational 'truths' which kept them subservient (actually, these truths were self serving ideas which underwrote an unjust and unearned monopoly of power in such institutions as the Catholic Church). If your truth is rational, and therefore unquestionable, how can I use rationality to assail it? After all, 'A is A'. The objectivist mode of thought, by rejecting the possibility of competing rationalities, condemns human progress.

The second category of reasons that people might be 'unconvinced' about objectivism relates to the people who purport to follow it. First of all, a minor writer of fiction (and an even less authoritative philosopher) has been installed as a cult figure, her works quoted like the bible to establish the truth or fallacy of arguments. This is a puerile response which emanates from the same psychological place as all religions and cults - overdependence on authority figures and the refusal or inability to face life's problems independently or with original thought.

Second, a lot of the web sites devoted to Rand and objectivism seem to double as dating agencies - hardly surprising, I suppose, that objectivists aren't too good at attracting the opposite (or same? now there's a radical thought) sex when

- anyone who might dare to suggest (with consummate rationality) that the earth's scarce resources should be preserved and nurtured, and that there is an incredibly complex ecological system which humans are in danger of unbalancing, is denounced as an unrepentant communist

- pride in American Imperialism is a constant (and boring) theme where all American 'action' is seen as heroic, noble and true. This is shallow patriotism, the last resort of scoundrels, and when all is said and done relates to a minor and short-lived phase in human history. It is as if Classical Philosophy had based all its major premises on the quality of Greek civilisation, rather than a (rational) look at the wider meaning of life

- the revision of history from a capitalist perspective has, ironically, a Stalinist ring to it. People still harping on about Vietnam? Come on, get over it - a Nationalist peasant struggle for independence (carried on for centuries against the Chinese and French amongst others) was successful and immediately implemented capitalism red in tooth and nail - an objectivist triumph if ever there was one.

Well, it's been nice sparring with you. I could go on, but I suspect that my particular rationality will be deemed politically incorrect (I've seen a recent posting here that suggests warning a correspondent for an 'insult' against objectivism that was undetectable by mere mortals).

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

[AMERICONORMAN]

"The second category of reasons that people might be 'unconvinced' about objectivism relates to the people who purport to follow it. First of all, a minor writer of fiction (and an even less authoritative philosopher) has been installed as a cult figure, her works quoted like the bible to establish the truth or fallacy of arguments. This is a puerile response which emanates from the same psychological place as all religions and cults - overdependence on authority figures and the refusal or inability to face life's problems independently or with original thought."

I'll take a shot at the above quote for now.

To say that she is a minor fiction writer may mean that she is unpopular. But I think you mean that she is not as good as the other writers in history. How will one gauge the grandeur of any one of her books. Is she unintelligable? Does she not paint for you the actions, the drama? Is it hard for you to understand what her character's motivations are? Do you not see what the big theme turns out to be? Is her style ungrammatical and flights of fancy? Have you ever seen heroes like she portrays? And maybe that's the problem--you never have--and now a challenge is put before you, like those dreams of god many people have? How will one achieve that character? It's much work? And look how lonely they are. "Nobody likes them." Look at the hurt that is thrown at them, look at the obstacles, see how people wish them dead, annihilated. And see how they fight back. And see how they win.

Perhaps the problem is that they win, and so suggesting that theirs is the right moral code, and method of thinking.

I will tell you that Miss Rand is talented enough to write a story where her heroes lose in a world that is set against them, in a world in which they have no will that is free to think and guide their actions. She can but she doesn't. The reason she never has is because of her different values, her different philosophies.

She is just as good of a writer as Edgar Allan Poe but she prefers not to focus on death, loss and misery. She is just as good as Hawthorne but she is not a Christian and prefers to dramatize the important parts. And she is just as good as Moliere, except she would have the Misanthrope as a minor character as a foil for a man-worshipper. And she is just as good as Victor Hugo, except she does not have this Christian ideal, but she understands the role of conflict in plot, and how to integrate the theme and characterization, to have a profound effect just like Hugo. And she is just as good as Dostoevsky, only instead of following the struggle of a tragic murderer to deal with his guilt, she would create a new plot where maybe the murderer was justified, or she would accept Raskolnikov's premises, but the detective would have HER philosophy. And she is just as good as Edmond Rostand but Cyrano would not choose to keep the secret of Christian's poetical talent, and he would not wait over a decade to finally tell Roxanne how much he loves her. And she is just as good as Schiller except the Marquis of Posa would not be an advocate of Kantian freedom, and perhaps Don Carlos would choose Queen over the mission to free Holland.

She is a major writer, who has done the necessary studying in both literature and philosophy. She has mastered the rules of grammar in at least three languages that I know of. And she mastered English in her twenties as a Russian immigrant. And if you think she is just a minor writer it is because you have not read her. You have merely been intimidated by some chance passage ... I guess. Now the decisions she makes in her stories are based on her philosophical values. This is true. And to argue against those decisions one should argue against her philosophy. There is ample opportunity on this forum to do so.

But you have chosen to walk into a heavily armed camp of intellectuals with rifle in hand to take random shots not knowing of the arsenal that is stored away in the minds of the intellectuals.

You obviously have specific opinions and there are plenty of threads to elaborate on them here. And the people here are very generous. For example there is plenty of opportunity to discuss specific of your notions about her literature and people will be glad to respond (I suppose).

Your approach reminds me of those people who would call a guy's mother a dirty name. Obviously the initial reaction is annoyance, that will be automatic. But the son has plenty of evidence to prove that his mother is not whatever is connoted by the vulgar word.

Americo.

[Free Thinker]

To throw in my two cents -

I agree with what Mrs. Speicher and with what a few of you have said so far. I know, to speak personally, the problem wasn't necessarily lack of properly inducing Objectivism, but the lack of consciously inducing anything! Before coming to this conclusion, I hadn't learned the power of ideas, and as a result I passively absorbed them for my environment - whether that be church, or debate club, etc. For teenagers especially, the idea that one can live a life in the moment, without thinking about the future or one's goals in life is very tempting - I was sucked in for a while (living on Nirvana and skateboarding). But (to give this phenomenon its name) the "noble savage" idea isn't a successful escape from ideas, it is a surrender.

Edited June 20, 2005 by ASelameab

[AisA]

Why are they still unconvinced? I can think of two categories of reason. The first is to do with the philosophical lack of coherence of the objectivist position, and the second with 'objectivists' themselves.

The objectivist or rationalist position is untenable on many different levels, but I'll take just two. First of all, the rationalist position is essentially one which relies upon reason and the evidence of the senses. If the senses were relied upon exclusively, no one would ever have set sail for the horizon. Time and again, rational positions adopted through reasoning from sensory evidence have been found found to be untrue, superstitious and childlike in their lack of understanding.

By what means were these positions found to be untrue -- if not through reason and observation?

Associated to this, in every area where human endeavour, philosophy and science is at the cutting edge and pushing human understanding to its limits, evidence mounts that the 'classic' rational statement "A is A" (an overblown concept if ever there was one) is a fallacy.

If "A is A" is a fallacy, then what you think are arguments against Objectivism might, in fact, be arguments in favor of Objectivism. Thus, you may be proving the validity of Objectivism. Thank you.

Quantum physics is the obvious case in point, where time and again distinctions have been made between local and non-local realities, and the importance of the influence of the observer in establishing just what 'A' is or is not. Heresy of heresies, these findings also support what mystics (seekers after truth who have heroically devoted lifetimes to the study of life and its meaning, by the way) have been trying to tell the rest of us for millennia.

But if "A is A" is a fallacy, then how do you know what quantum physics and mystics have been trying to tell us? If thier statements are not what they are, then they may be something different -- and so what are they?

This brings up another of objectivism's bete noirs - the spectre of relativism. This is unfortunate for a philosophy which apparently sets so much store by the freedom of the individual: relativism is a liberation from the old certainties which kept the mass of people quietly accepting the irrational 'truths' which kept them subservient (actually, these truths were self serving ideas which underwrote an unjust and unearned monopoly of power in such institutions as the Catholic Church). If your truth is rational, and therefore unquestionable, how can I use rationality to assail it? After all, 'A is A'. The objectivist mode of thought, by rejecting the possibility of competing rationalities, condemns human progress.

If there is such a thing as "competing rationalities", how do we decide which rationality is the appropriate one to use?

And does progress really depend on irrationality?

The second category of reasons that people might be 'unconvinced' about objectivism relates to the people who purport to follow it. First of all, a minor writer of fiction (and an even less authoritative philosopher) has been installed as a cult figure, her works quoted like the bible to establish the truth or fallacy of arguments. This is a puerile response which emanates from the same psychological place as all religions and cults - overdependence on authority figures and the refusal or inability to face life's problems independently or with original thought.

Is Miss Rand really a cult figure? Gee, where do I get my secret decoding ring?

Of all the arguments against Objectivism, this it the lamest. It amounts to saying the philosophy must be false because those who believe it do so consistently.

Second, a lot of the web sites devoted to Rand and objectivism seem to double as dating agencies - hardly surprising, I suppose, that objectivists aren't too good at attracting the opposite (or same? now there's a radical thought) sex when

  - anyone who might dare to suggest (with consummate rationality) that the earth's scarce resources should be preserved and nurtured, and that there is an incredibly complex ecological system which humans are in danger of unbalancing, is denounced as an unrepentant communist

Now hold on a second! How can a suggestion be made with "consummate rationality" if there are competing rationalities? By what standard is one particular rationality dubbed consummate?

  - pride in American Imperialism is a constant (and boring) theme where all American 'action' is seen as heroic, noble and true. This is shallow patriotism, the last resort of scoundrels, and when all is said and done relates to a minor and short-lived phase in human history. It is as if Classical Philosophy had based all its major premises on the quality of Greek civilisation, rather than a (rational) look at the wider meaning of life

You have seen no criticisms of American action at this web site?

  - the revision of history from a capitalist perspective has, ironically, a Stalinist ring to it. People still harping on about Vietnam? Come on, get over it - a Nationalist peasant struggle for independence (carried on for centuries against the Chinese and French amongst others) was successful and immediately implemented capitalism red in tooth and nail - an objectivist triumph if ever there was one.

So the enslavement of the South Vietnamese and subsequent murder of many thousands of them constitutes capitalism and a triumph of Objectivism? Mass murder = Objectivism even though Objectivism condemns the initiation of force?

If this is the nature of your mental processes, no wonder you do not trust observation and reason.

Well, it's been nice sparring with you. I could go on, but I suspect that my particular rationality will be deemed politically incorrect (I've seen a recent posting here that suggests warning a correspondent for an 'insult' against objectivism that was undetectable by mere mortals).

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

          Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

Oh, I see. You just dropped by to lob a few lame insults instead of attempting to understand Objectivism. But then, how prosaic it is of me to use a term like "understanding". After all, if there are competing rationalities, there must be competing understandings, and his understanding of Objectivism must be just as valid as mine.

[BlackSabbath]

  - the revision of history from a capitalist perspective has, ironically, a Stalinist ring to it. People still harping on about Vietnam? Come on, get over it - a Nationalist peasant struggle for independence (carried on for centuries against the Chinese and French amongst others) was successful and immediately implemented capitalism red in tooth and nail - an objectivist triumph if ever there was one.

The Communist victory lead to capitalism? Capitalism is red in tooth and nail?

Spot the frontal assault on reality everyone.

Well, it's been nice sparring with you. I could go on, but I suspect that my particular rationality will be deemed politically incorrect (I've seen a recent posting here that suggests warning a correspondent for an 'insult' against objectivism that was undetectable by mere mortals).

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

          Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

Translation: Hello. My name is Troll, Troll McTroll. I am here to troll. Troll, troll, troll, troll! Right! Off to attack Gondor in daylight while the will of Sauron endures! Please patiently refute all my rubbish in Sisyphean fashion instead of dismissing is as being an obvious troll.

p.s. Pay no attention to the fact that I have favoured nothing at all and only tried to refute things. This is in no way the classic sign of a Troll.

[Hamlet]

The Communist victory lead to capitalism? Capitalism is red in tooth and nail? 

Spot the frontal assault on reality everyone.

Translation: Hello. My name is Troll, Troll McTroll. I am here to troll. Troll, troll, troll, troll! Right! Off to attack Gondor in daylight while the will of Sauron endures! Please patiently refute all my rubbish in Sisyphean fashion instead of dismissing is as being an obvious troll.

p.s. Pay no attention to the fact that I have favoured nothing at all and only tried to refute things. This is in no way the classic sign of a Troll.

[Hamlet]

Thanks for the very amusing and spirited replies, everyone! I think my favourite was the comparison of Rand with Dostoevsky. Splendid!

But the really interesting part for me was how quickly we got to the sophistry (in the worst possible sense) of advancing the idea that disagreement with the concept of 'A is A' thereby in and of itself invalidates every possible argument against it. In this light 'A is A' - as all you 'heavily armed intellectuals' must be aware - is tautologous in every sense: it is true only by virtue of its logical form, it is redundant, and is a needless and rhetorical repetition of a self-apparent statement.

Greetings from Air Strip One!

[BlackSabbath]

But the really interesting part for me was how quickly we got to the sophistry (in the worst possible sense) of advancing the idea that disagreement with the concept of 'A is A' thereby in and of itself invalidates every possible argument against it. In this light 'A is A' - as all you 'heavily armed intellectuals' must be aware - is tautologous in every sense: it is true only by virtue of its logical form, it is redundant, and is a needless and rhetorical repetition of a self-apparent statement.

Greetings from Air Strip One!

And still you favour nothing at all.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Thanks for the very amusing and spirited replies, everyone! I think my favourite was the comparison of Rand with Dostoevsky. Splendid!

But the really interesting part for me was how quickly we got to the sophistry (in the worst possible sense) of advancing the idea that disagreement with the concept of 'A is A' thereby in and of itself invalidates every possible argument against it. In this light 'A is A' - as all you 'heavily armed intellectuals' must be aware - is tautologous in every sense: it is true only by virtue of its logical form, it is redundant, and is a needless and rhetorical repetition of a self-apparent statement.

Greetings from Air Strip One!

If A is non A then Rand can be exactly like Dostoevsky, and yet not like him, and yet we could neve compare the two, and yet we must. Well they're both Russian so I guess they share some A-ness.

[AisA]

Thanks for the very amusing and spirited replies, everyone! I think my favourite was the comparison of Rand with Dostoevsky. Splendid!

But the really interesting part for me was how quickly we got to the sophistry (in the worst possible sense) of advancing the idea that disagreement with the concept of 'A is A' thereby in and of itself invalidates every possible argument against it.

All claims to knowledge presuppose that "A is A", that things are what they are and not something else. If A is not necessarily A, then knowledge is not necessarily knowledge, right?

In this light 'A is A' - as all you 'heavily armed intellectuals' must be aware - is tautologous in every sense: it is true only by virtue of its logical form, it is redundant, and is a needless and rhetorical repetition of a self-apparent statement.

So you are now retreating from your earlier claim that "A is A" is a fallacy? Are you also retreating from your notion of "competing rationalities"?

[source]

I think it's evasion that comes from a powerful, overwhelming fear to use one's mind.

I have also been observing other people, and I have come to a slightly different conclusion - that they never even learned how to use their minds properly. They don't know what focus is, and they can't maintain it.

Fear is only that which comes afterwards, at an older age, when one realizes that using one's mind would mean finding out how many bad things one's done in his life. They'd rather blank out on this, than utilize the only tool that can help them improve their lives. Basically, the only thing they can hope for is that their descendants won't make the same mistakes. However, being unable to reason out the alternative course of action, they resort to contradictory measures of upbringing - sometimes they are overly protective of their children, shielding them from the consequences of their actions, while some other times, they punish their children unnecessarily. Being consistent in either of these is also bad, because both of these teach the child the wrong idea - either that they can blank out on the consequences of their actions, or that it doesn't matter what one does, consequences will always be bad.

In any of the above cases, the child does not learn the faculty of reasoning. They never learn what it means to think and they can rarely or never come up with the correct conclusion. And so they go on in their lives, until reality finally does its job, and they figure out that they've been living a fantasy, at which point it is often too late to make a change.

So, why ARE they still unconvinced after they read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead?

Some are, for a while, but then they give up, because getting on the right path takes too much effort. They have to learn quickly what they haven't learned throughout their childhood. Basically, they give up. Others, who find themselves in the character of Toohey or Keating, or other villains, actually get angry. It's an irrational anger, directed first at the book they read, then at Ayn Rand, then at Objectivism and Objectivists. Someone has shown them how corrupted they truly are - the fact which they have tried to filter out of their lives by blanking out on it.

And one minor fraction remain Objectivists, struggling to improve their lives.

[Bold Standard]

1) I like David Lynch movies.  But why?  They are dark, irrational, and seemingly full of a postmodern sickness.  Yet there is something magical, fantastic, about them: you never know what sort of quirky strangeness will happen next. 

I don't know you're specific reasons for liking the films of David Lynch, or whether they're rational. But I do think there are some perfectly valid, objective reasons for liking (aspects) of them.

For one thing, Lynch has an undeniable knack for assembling the best crews for his films- his lighting crew, his his camera men, the set designers, etc, are always top notch in his movies. I can't think of anyone besides Stanley Kubric who has made such visually beautiful movies as Lynch's since the 1950's. In the Romantic Manifesto Ayn Rand says that in an artfully done movie, you should be able to freeze any given frame and hang it on a wall as a work of art (or something to that effect). That is exactly how I feel when I watch "The Straight Story," or "Twin Peaks," or many of Lynch's other films. Sometimes he gets ugly and Dada-esque, and that's what I don't like. But I'd say more often than not he has beautifully framed, balanced, interesting camera shots.

I think he also chooses talented actors and writes scenes that accentuate whatever that actor is best at (although out of context). The problem with him is that, being a dedicated Naturalist, to the point of "surrealism," he avoids any real characterizations or motive-driven plots. Everything is driven by a grim Shakespearean type determinism. To me, that's like the equivalent of a Director saying "I don't want to concern myself with things I don't understand like plots and characters, all that matters is what I'm good at- getting the most out of my camera crews and actors," etc. But the result is that by doing that, he makes it impossible to ever really get the best out of his crews and actors, because none of it means anything. It just sets a kind of mood that it never integrates into a story. Some of his dialogs are humorous or charming in the way that Naturalistic dialogs can be.

Liking Lynch is like liking Dali for me. I can appreciate many technical aspects of his work, and sometimes the overall picture sets an interesting mood, but I still have to reel in disgust from the obvious irrational premises guiding the work. (Sorry for posting off topic!)

[skap35]

So, why ARE they still unconvinced after they read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead?

The vast majority of people I've dealt with all have some huge misconception about Objectivism. For example, about a month ago my friend was looking through my bookshelf. He then said "eww you have a lot of Ayn Rand...I hate her." I then asked him what books he read of hers and why he hates Objectivism. His reply was that he read The Fountainhead and he hates Objectivism because it justifies hurting other people to get what you want. He then went on to say, as an example, that if we were competing businessmen, Objectivism justifies his killing me to eliminate the competition.

Needless to say I was horrified. We then had a talk and I corrected his misconceptions and explained what I could about Objectivism. At the end of our conversation he told me that I had some good points and it made perfect sense. I don't think he was just humouring me, but I also doubt that I inspired him to read more about Objectivism.

I have encountered quite a few people with similar errors who read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. I myself had quite a few questions after reading The Fountainhead. But the difference is that I actually tried to find answers to my questions rather than accept what I thought the symbolism of a novel was referring to. The people who are still unconvinced were reading these books purely for entertainment value. Not to understand Objectivism.

Edited June 30, 2005 by skap35

[Tikkun]

Aside from the behaviour of many Oists, the single greatest barrier is likely the fiction itself. Let's face it, the characters can be thoroughly unbelievable and her writing often comes off as base propaganda.

Many people reading her fiction get a sense of Rand's extreme paranoia and just think "This girl has a sick mind", and never give it a second thought.

[studentofobjectivism]

Let's face it, the characters can be thoroughly unbelievable [...]

What leads you to this conclusion? There are plenty of Howard Roarks and Hank Reardens out there. And sadly, just as many Peter Keatings and Ellsworth Tooheys.

[oldsalt]

Aside from the behaviour of many Oists, the single greatest barrier is likely the fiction itself. Let's face it, the characters can be thoroughly unbelievable and her writing often comes off as base propaganda.

Many people reading her fiction get a sense of Rand's extreme paranoia and just think "This girl has a sick mind", and never give it a second thought.

That you could say such a thing makes me wonder what you are doing here. Do you spell your name "TROLL"?

[y_feldblum]

Are the characters, in fact, thoroughly unbelievable? Is her writing, in fact, base propaganda? Is she, in fact, extremely paranoid? Does she, in fact, have a sick mind?

Don't hide behind a maybe.

[BlackSabbath]

Many people reading her fiction get a sense of Rand's extreme paranoia and just think "This girl has a sick mind", and never give it a second thought.

Hello, my name is Troll. Troll McTroll. I am here to troll. Troll, troll, troll! Troll, troll, troll!

I can endure the sun while the will of Sauron exists.

Objectivists, do not waste your time with ad hominem attacks like this.

Nothing is more annoying about my fellow objectivists than their sisyphean attempts to refute trolls with posts approaching the length of the latest Harry Potter book.

This emoticon isn't as good as the one that said "Yarr!"

[source]

The vast majority of people I've dealt with all have some huge misconception about Objectivism.

I've only met two people who have heard of Ayn Rand here in Croatia. Both of them just cursed her and called her philosophy "a corruption of reason" and "pseudophilosophy" and didn't want to talk about her further.

[Hal]

One feature common to almost all modern intellectual frameworks is the postulation of dubious psychological mechanisms to explain why non-believers reject the theory ('repression' in Freud, 'false consciousness' in Marx, 'inauthenticity' in Heidegger, and I could go on). I dont think Objectivism needs to engage in similar rationalisations - different people disagree with Objectivism for different reasons, and trying to say that there is one underlying cause at the root of all this ('evasion') just runs into the same problems as the mechanisms mentioned above.

Edited July 4, 2005 by Hal