Why do good things happen to bad people?

[hernan]

I agree. I just wanted you to say it for me. I'm hesistant to assert a conspiracy theory for fear of finding my article in Sasquatch Magazine. Even if authors never conspired with each other to keep Rand and Objectivism out of their books, it still amounts to a conspiracy when the people with power in academia have a history of unjust bias, when influencing what is taught.

 

Conspiracy is the wrong word. There is a concensus that Rand's philosophy is either (usually both) kooky and dangerous. When everyone openly agrees on something there is no need for a conspiracy.

[aleph_1]

I'm not sure what situation you are referring to but what I found brilliant from Marx was his observation that factory owners relied on respect for their property. In a loose sense, he told workers to withdraw their sanction of ownership of property.

I imagine Rand to be the anti-Marx but it doesn't seem her concept of the sanction of the victim is as practical.

 

When I read in the Communist Manifesto that workers under socialism would be spurred to greater productivity by their sense of brotherhood I had to laugh out loud. I recall an interview with Soviet workers who said, "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work."

 

That said, I have to admit that FORCE IS EFFECTIVE. It is through force that barrons controlled trade routes. Force is what kept kings in power. Stalin could use incentives or force to motivate workers. He disproportionately chose force.

 

Force has a cost. One's best work is not done under the threat of force. Many lives were lost in the last century under regimes of force. This leads to the ambiguity concerning the practicality of force.

 

The sanction of the victim is only one element in the opposition to force. Vive le Ragnar.

[Skylab72]

Sure, conspiracy requires collusion, I read in those remarks more a 'preponderance of resistance'. 

[Skylab72]

I am skeptical of that explanation. And did Ayn Rand really proclaim herself a philosopher? Was that on her resume or her speaking bio? Maybe the fact that she gave a name to her philosophy. But I've heard also that professional philosophers were more annoyed at the fact that she didn't go through academic channels to reach an audience. What could be more annoying to a philosophy professor than to have some snot nosed kid challenging you in class by drawing from a novelist?

 

In any case, I think if her ideas were more in line with the profesoriate they would have overlooked her nonacademic background. Peikoff may have taken away the excuse but I doubt you will see any significant increase in respect for Objectivism from the mainstream. Those writing surveys of philosophy will continue to ignore Objectivism.

 

But, again, this brings us back to my central question. What would it take for people to take a serious look? Where are the fruits of Objectivism?

Maybe she did not, I have no hard evidence. But you've made me curious. Whenever I see/hear one of her interviews, I will be listening for it. What I can say is, she did not shrink from having the word applied to her.  Resume? I have no idea. Speaking bio? The phrase I recall is "Author of the Philosophical Novel 'Atlas Shrugged' ", but I think Random House provided that. I did not become aware of her until after the first printing of AS. Anyway, statements like, "I am challenging the philosophical dogma of the last hundred and fifty years.", certainly would give the impression she considered herself a philosopher.

 

But back to your central question, I wonder if 'people' ever will. I suspect, 'adoption' of an Objectivist ethic is spotty at best.  It's 'fruits' therefore may be difficult to identify. I have heard it expressed, that one might assert significant components of the Objectivist ethic, actually predating the philosophy's elucidation and naming, were what drew her to the USA in the first place (an opinion piece, called 'Rand bootstrapped by American Revolution', that naturally included a generous helping of Rand quotes). Looking at post-Rand notables among stand-out business persons is frustrating at best. I have read enough bio's of such people that, had they been chosen at random, could make a statistically significant sample, but none of them ever mentioned any Rand influence. Does this mean no influence? Or perhaps a few were influenced, just unwilling to mention her? 

 

No, I do not anticipate some notable turning point, where 'people take a serious look'. I think it will be a long slow infusing of ideas, until there comes an evolutionary tipping point, after which it will still be difficult to attribute specifics, but for complementary (in the math sense) reasons. Mankind is simultaneously approaching another evolutionary tipping point, when there comes a critical mass of human population living off earth. When that happens, various "disenfranchised" groups, perhaps including one or more philosophically motivated, may take that opportunity to 'fork' civilization, not unlike some Europeans did going to the Americas during the 1700s. It is fun to speculate.

[hernan]

When I read in the Communist Manifesto that workers under socialism would be spurred to greater productivity by their sense of brotherhood I had to laugh out loud. I recall an interview with Soviet workers who said, "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work."

 

That said, I have to admit that FORCE IS EFFECTIVE. It is through force that barrons controlled trade routes. Force is what kept kings in power. Stalin could use incentives or force to motivate workers. He disproportionately chose force.

 

Force has a cost. One's best work is not done under the threat of force. Many lives were lost in the last century under regimes of force. This leads to the ambiguity concerning the practicality of force.

 

The sanction of the victim is only one element in the opposition to force. Vive le Ragnar.

 

This, I think, is where a serious discussion begins. "Sanction of the Victim" is certianly an important element of a general theory but it is no, alone, a sufficient explanation of why coercion works and, thus, withdrawal of sanction is not a general solution.

 

Ragnar was one of the weakest characters in AS. On the one hand, I wish he were not included. But, on the other hand, the story lacked that element otherwise. I think Rand recognized the need for a Ragnar but she didn't want to focus on that aspect prefering, instead, to tell the story of the Strike.

 

The practicality of force is, indeed, an enigmatic topic. Clearly it is the right choice in some circumstances but equally true it is the wrong on in most and human nature is to overrely on it.

[hernan]

 

Maybe she did not, I have no hard evidence. But you've made me curious. Whenever I see/hear one of her interviews, I will be listening for it. What I can say is, she did not shrink from having the word applied to her.  Resume? I have no idea. Speaking bio? The phrase I recall is "Author of the Philosophical Novel 'Atlas Shrugged' ", but I think Random House provided that. I did not become aware of her until after the first printing of AS. Anyway, statements like, "I am challenging the philosophical dogma of the last hundred and fifty years.", certainly would give the impression she considered herself a philosopher.

 

But back to your central question, I wonder if 'people' ever will. I suspect, 'adoption' of an Objectivist ethic is spotty at best.  It's 'fruits' therefore may be difficult to identify. I have heard it expressed, that one might assert significant components of the Objectivist ethic, actually predating the philosophy's elucidation and naming, were what drew her to the USA in the first place (an opinion piece, called 'Rand bootstrapped by American Revolution', that naturally included a generous helping of Rand quotes). Looking at post-Rand notables among stand-out business persons is frustrating at best. I have read enough bio's of such people that, had they been chosen at random, could make a statistically significant sample, but none of them ever mentioned any Rand influence. Does this mean no influence? Or perhaps a few were influenced, just unwilling to mention her? 

 

No, I do not anticipate some notable turning point, where 'people take a serious look'. I think it will be a long slow infusing of ideas, until there comes an evolutionary tipping point, after which it will still be difficult to attribute specifics, but for complementary (in the math sense) reasons. Mankind is simultaneously approaching another evolutionary tipping point, when there comes a critical mass of human population living off earth. When that happens, various "disenfranchised" groups, perhaps including one or more philosophically motivated, may take that opportunity to 'fork' civilization, not unlike some Europeans did going to the Americas during the 1700s. It is fun to speculate.

 

 

There is no question that Rand drew together many preexisting threads. That is not to slight her insight and brilliance but, as you say, she recognized that America had something that Russia (and many other places) lacked. The American Founding Fathers were certainly on the right track even if they were overly focused on government. And we can find proto-Objectivism popping up here and there.

 

But that's for academics. The more important situation is Post-Rand. Of course, ideas spread at some pace but what influences that pace? Rand pegged the industrialists as the "disenfranchised" and I think we got a small taste of that with Perkins' letter to the WSJ defending the rich and subsequent firestorm it ignited. The disenfranchised are not only the rich and successful but all those who aspire to be so, to succeed, to meet life head on. Not every ambitious person will give up if society disrespects them but certainly there will be many who do.

[theestevearnold]

Conspiracy is the wrong word. There is a concensus

I agree. I should've said consensus.

[theestevearnold]

withdrawal of sanction is not a general solution.

Yep, it's not a general solution. It's an awakening, which is an important step.

Let me define "sanction of the victim": It's when a victim WILLINGLY cooperates with his victimizer.

Duty was a word AR opposed. The preachers of altruistic theologies/philosophies, and statist propagandists have ingrained a sense-of-duty into many men. They don't know they're being victimized. They feel it would be evil to withdraw sanction. The moment a rational man realizes he's been WILLINGLY cooperating with evil, his sanction is withdrawn. This awakening is just a step, and often goes no further or leads to no solution, so I see your point in saying it's not Thee Solution.

The victim might still cooperate, but not willingly.

[Skylab72]

There is no question that Rand drew together many preexisting threads. That is not to slight her insight and brilliance but, as you say, she recognized that America had something that Russia (and many other places) lacked. The American Founding Fathers were certainly on the right track even if they were overly focused on government. And we can find proto-Objectivism popping up here and there.

 

But that's for academics. The more important situation is Post-Rand. Of course, ideas spread at some pace but what influences that pace? Rand pegged the industrialists as the "disenfranchised" and I think we got a small taste of that with Perkins' letter to the WSJ defending the rich and subsequent firestorm it ignited. The disenfranchised are not only the rich and successful but all those who aspire to be so, to succeed, to meet life head on. Not every ambitious person will give up if society disrespects them but certainly there will be many who do.

The pace at which ideas spread is also a topic of some academic discussion, "Meem Theory" for starters. 

[hernan]

The pace at which ideas spread is also a topic of some academic discussion, "Meem Theory" for starters. 

 

I think most people would agree that the spread of new ideas is facilitated by modern technology. Of course, people are the same as they always were. And there is certainly a lot more to distract people from important subjects.

[hernan]

Yep, it's not a general solution. It's an awakening, which is an important step.

Let me define "sanction of the victim": It's when a victim WILLINGLY cooperates with his victimizer.

Duty was a word AR opposed. The preachers of altruistic theologies/philosophies, and statist propagandists have ingrained a sense-of-duty into many men. They don't know they're being victimized. They feel it would be evil to withdraw sanction. The moment a rational man realizes he's been WILLINGLY cooperating with evil, his sanction is withdrawn. This awakening is just a step, and often goes no further or leads to no solution, so I see your point in saying it's not Thee Solution.

The victim might still cooperate, but not willingly.

 

One thing that I have long noticed is that most people (and I don't exclude yours truly from this generalization) don't see all the choices open to them. People often get into routines and ruts because they don't think for themselves or simply don't think. In short, people miss opportunities.

 

So maybe withdrawal of sanction of the victim is not a magic solution to every problem but I suspect it is very central. A slave can't necessariy free himself by rejecting his situation but by rejecting his situation he is open to opportunities to free himself. What is then required is good ol' fashioned problem solving. But someone who accepts their situation will never bother to seek an escape.

[Skylab72]

One thing that I have long noticed is that most people (and I don't exclude yours truly from this generalization) don't see all the choices open to them. People often get into routines and ruts because they don't think for themselves or simply don't think. In short, people miss opportunities.

 

Relative to the 'fruits of Objectivism', I suspect this tendency to settle into routine and ruts is indicative of an evolutionary preference for perceived efficiency, an 'I found an efficient (easy) way to do this i am going to stick with it.' attitude. Objectivism, as an ethical guide for behaviour, on the other hand, is demanding. It pushes for reevaluation of facts for every decision. Almost no one is up for that. Thus pragmatic (little 'p') compromises abound.

 

edit sl72 spell correct

Edited February 9, 2014 by Skylab72