Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why Objectivism is so unpopular

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Aengus Song said:

Why is Objectivism "unpopular?"... 

...the preponderance of the West's professional intellectuals have both financial and also psychological reasons to dislike Objectivism.

Welcome to Objectivism Online.

What about before they were educators would they have liked Objectivism then? Also, are the teachers in Catholic schools more open to Objectivism? What about teachers in other non-religious private schools?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

Welcome to Objectivism Online.

What about before they were educators would they have liked Objectivism then? Also, are the teachers in Catholic schools more open to Objectivism? What about teachers in other non-religious private schools?

SN. I think we all know there are multiple reasons, cultural, religious, philosophical momentum etc. I do think a large factor in its being a vicious cycle is those on positions passing on those errors... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

SN. I think we all know there are multiple reasons, cultural, religious, philosophical momentum etc. I do think a large factor in its being a vicious cycle is those on positions passing on those errors... 

Yes, there are bound to be multiple factors. Would you speculate that a teacher in a private school (religious or otherwise) is less likely to have a philosophy that is counter to Objectivism?
Fuirther, if one were to do a random sampling of private and public school teachers in Texas, New York, Michigan and California... would you speculate that location has lower or higher correlation with anti-Objectivist views than the private/public factor?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SN, that's two different ways of breaking down the demographics. I would like to think that the private/public factor would be within an acceptable tolerance range/zone of being "the same" regardless of the geographical location, i.e., 50 states, private/public 20%/80% ranging to, say, 30%/70%, vs., finding the range going from 1%99% to 99%/1% covering 50 equidistance spreads in increments of ~2%, across the continent. (Number spreads picked solely to help contrast different findings in such a speculation.)

This is predicated on a premise that the private sector is generally comprised of parochial and, mostly likely, a Montessori approach, while homeschooling is most likely some sort of mix between these.

Given Aquinas' attempt to integrate Catholicism with Aristotle is a fact of the past—the ability to integrate religion with Objectivism is bound to result in a null set (augmenting SL's point, or so I am inclined to think.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-08-20 at 8:50 PM, softwareNerd said:

Yes, there are bound to be multiple factors. Would you speculate that a teacher in a private school (religious or otherwise) is less likely to have a philosophy that is counter to Objectivism?
Fuirther, if one were to do a random sampling of private and public school teachers in Texas, New York, Michigan and California... would you speculate that location has lower or higher correlation with anti-Objectivist views than the private/public factor?

I think private versus public schools would show a little statistical correlation ... geographical based culture often is a mongrel combination of social regulation /oppression going hand in hand with economic freedom or the converse ..

I don't know enough about public funding of colleges or how tenure works to have any kind of informed opinion but I would guess such things being factors is at least plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 8/16/2015 at 5:08 PM, Eiuol said:

But the main reason I'd say is that it's not really popular at all to advocate for anything fully dedicated to self-improvement and self-mastery. So even the life-promoting things are hard to talk about with people who don't already seek to be their best. I don't think it's hopeless, though, it's not an impossible task to change minds.

Why do you think that Eiuol, isn't the self-improvement market huge?

The problem starts from Rand's combative style. I saw a video where Tibor Machan justified her abrasiveness because of what people had put her through. Nevertheless, she was abrasive. But things have changed it seems, nowadays, I notice both Yaron Brook, (who successfully gave his presentations in a Muslim nation, at Baku) is spreading the information and is now being inclusive of Libertarians. And the Atlas Society is deliberately opening their doors to Christians if I am not wrong. I think the CEO is close friends with Laura Ingram who is religious and maybe that had an impact. 

On 8/17/2015 at 12:23 PM, Nicky said:

Let's put it this way: it wasn't Ayn Rand's slanderers who went on o'Reilly and said that according to Objectivism nuking Tehran should be a tactical option available to the military (or whatever was said exactly). It was Leonard Peikoff. And, in my opinion at least, it was a pretty accurate representation of Objectivism. It was a mistake to say it, because it's not something most Americans are ready to hear, but it's not like it's not true. And I bet that single TV appearance turned off more people to Objectivism than all the slanderous articles put together.

When I try to introduce people to objectivism, the last thing I want to show them is that video. Many of my objectivist circle were disappointed with his delivery and I never saw him do a public TV appearance after that. Just the way he starts with "I am absolutely not concerned with innocents ... etc" is going to freak people out. I assume he had no PR person watching out for him.

But as Nathaniel said after her death, history will prove her right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Why do you think that Eiuol, isn't the self-improvement market huge?

The problem starts from Rand's combative style. 

I think the problem really starts because self-improvement is not the focus.

It starts with someone reading about Objectivism and thinking: "So much that I've been taught is wrong; yet everyone spouts this wrong stuff". It isn't too surprising that this lowers the reader's empathetic-benevolence to the views of others. E.g. you could love Fountainhead and want to be like Roark, but -- in doing so -- you might conclude: "life is going to be one big struggle, and if I don't get lucky with a good jury I'll end in jail; if I don't get a rich guy who loves my work, I'll end up in a garret" 

Also, the majority of readers focus on politics. E.g. you might read Atlas Shrugged and end up thinking: "The world is so screwed up that there's really little hope for change". Perhaps you might try to fight for political change in some way, with little success, and end up dejected, and reduced to ranting to other ranting Objectivists. 

Sure... one can implicate Rand, Peikoff, etc.in this, but in the end Objectivism is about the individual, and the buck stops there. Rand was asked: "How does one live a Rational Life in an irrational World?" and her most fundamental reply was "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgement". At face value, this is flawed at two levels: firstly, the possible premise that the world "is irrational"; and, also in the response.

I say "at face value" because the question is being interpreted narrowly. Objectivists need to ask a variation of this question. Something like: "How do I live a Happy life in an imperfect world?"

And, the answer needs to be mostly inward-facing: take all the good self-help books, and extract the the good philosophical principles from those. Even from religious teachers like Rick Warren and from Prosperity-Gospel folk. Anyone who is giving people "life hack" ideas of how to succeed in something. Remove the specifics, and extract the philosophical principles, and you'll get the nuggets that are consistent with Objectivism.

The primary focus of the individual should be "How to Live a Happy life". The rest is essentially useless if it is does not contribute to that happiness. (Aside: It would be truly ironic if someone agreed and then ended up feeling guilty that he ain't happy enough.)

Movements makes mistakes, learn, and evolve. Looking at the Objectivism's history, one sees three or four pretty distinct periods, and it gets better each time. Over the last few years, the student groups have taken that focus, even re-branding themselves "Strive". Some local community groups have done the same. I think the movement needs an intellectual or two who pursues this into "a thing": where they demonstrate how Objectivism is -- first and foremost -- the route to personal happiness; where he integrates this with the best self-help ideas and life-hacks out there; and, hopefully, where they do this so well that they become popular. Not sure is Alex Epstein is heading in that direction.

 

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Why do you think that Eiuol, isn't the self-improvement market huge?

The problem starts from Rand's combative style.

On a slightly different tact, some are drawn by Rand's combative style.

In martial arts training, a good sensei stresses that the art is more than just learning how to fight. One also needs to become the best that one can become. Not just the best fighter, but to excel at any undertaking that is worth undertaking. Very Francisco-like. Whatever he did, he did superlatively well. Whatever he applied himself to, he did with the intention to succeed. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing as well as can be done withing the capacity of the doer.

Rand puts forth, even if in a combative style at times, effective argumentation. Individuals who read one of her books and get the sense that she has something worthwhile. As human beings, the individual may evaluate others by the conclusions they have drawn about themselves. So if they read Atlas Shrugged and understand part of the essence of her novel, it can be bewildering why it is not as obvious to others as it was to themselves. "After all," they think, "I can understand this, I'm a human being, therefore other human beings should be able to understand this." (And others do, in varying degrees.)

The fight, however, is not primarily with persuading others of the rightness of her ideas. The real struggle is coming to understand what is objectively right—for oneself—and once discovering it, not to relinquish it under any circumstances.

A gauge I've used for years in the preparation of blueprints, is to evaluate the questions that came back regarding the blueprint itself. Was there an omission on my behalf, a missing section, a missing view, a missing dimension, etc.? If so, the section, view, or dimension is added, making the blueprint a clearer reference. Other times, a question raised indicated where the blueprint reader was deficient in that capacity, so the explanation is not about the particular blueprint in question as much as how to read a blueprint in general.

In the light of the thread topic, I'm not convinced that Objectivism is unpopular, rather, like the politics it advocates, Capitalism, it is still an unknown ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Isn't an unknown ideal, not that popular?

In a sense, as popular/unpopular is being used here, yes. But unknown carries deeper implications, that make the application of popular/unpopular more difficult. There are yet discoveries that have not been made. Would it be proper to say the undiscovered is popular or unpopular, or would it just be the case that the undiscovered is simply just still unknown?

Granted, Objectivism has been discovered, but are its "mysteries" known, or do they still lurk about in the unknown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, softwareNerd said:
9 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The problem starts from Rand's combative style.

I think the problem really starts because self-improvement is not the focus.

I think you're both right.

The outward/political focus versus self-improvement or the pursuit of personal happiness, and also the combative style... though not necessarily so much Rand's (though that's part of the issue), as that of Objectivists who try to ape her style. In my experience, most Objectivists have no idea how to talk to people outside of the Objectivist community, and no apparent desire to try to distinguish those who might be fundamentally open to reason, yet mistaken on one or several points.

How to talk to people, to discuss ideas, to persuade -- both within and outside of Objectivism -- is a topic that is not only under-explored, but is regarded with outright suspicion by some. Some people seem content to pass moral judgement and condemn others to hell, rather than the (admittedly more difficult) project of examining their own methods of communication.

I have found that many Objectivists have the reputation of being "assholes"; so much so that it's arguably regarded as characteristic. I don't think it's even undeserved. But it doesn't have to be so. I've known many utterly pleasant and polite Objectivists, and I see no reason why someone cannot be both correct and nice. Even our expressions of anger, where merited, can stand critical examination and improvement. Above all, I think that empathy is a vital characteristic (I would not go so far as to say that it is a "virtue," because I am not prepared for the argument -- but I'm not dismissing it either).

I've used this analogy before, and I think it still serves: Objectivists have the best product on the market. We have truth. We have reason and reality on our side -- and despite what you may have heard (and despite humanity's checkered history), reason and reality are fairly persuasive forces. They keep all of us alive, every day, and have formed the basis for all of humanity's many achievements. So despite everything we're working against (deeply ingrained cultural forces, including academia, the media, and political institutions), I think Objectivism stands poised to remake the world.

What we need -- what any great product needs -- is sales. We need to examine and re-examine (and re-examine again) our means and methods of communicating our ideas to a world which is frankly starving for reason, for peace, for happiness. We must continue to improve upon our approach until we succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much has been made of Rand's personality and intransigence in dealing with challenges to her philosophy, and indeed it sometimes straddles the line between satisfying polemic with moral fire and vigor and a nasty hostility to criticism. Also how much of this is the people Rand mistakenly surrounded herself with, such as the Brandens, who by some accounts, tended to be the source of dogmatism and hostility, at least before their schism. All of this seems to have shot Rand's movement in the foot.

However there is Rand's philosophy one one hand, and the objectivist organizations and institutions on the other. Much of the blame can also be placed at the hands of objectivist institutions, I think. They do a good job of getting Rand's novels into high school curriculums, which is the Lords work for sure, but aside from that, they have been a huge flop, even barrier to Rand scholarship.

What would benefit Objectivism the most is making all of Rand's writings and writings of her students and commentators available online in one easily accessible place. There is no reason to have Rand's books hidden behind paywalls. There are tons of lecture series and other works associated, why are they not online in one place?

Any institute dedicated to Rand scholarship should have an online Academy where professors can organize courses, charge per course, where anyone who wants to can easily sign up and learn about Objectivism, interacting with the teachers and staff via skype. 

There should be a website with daily publications and postings. The articles on ARI sites mostly suck and are pedantic.

There should be scholarly journals publishing papers every few months. Where are the symposiums and calls for papers on all sorts of topics, Rand vs Nietzsche, Rand vs Spinoza, Rand vs analytic philosophy, egoism and rights, theories of freewill, theories of induction, Rand's epistemology and evolutionary psychology, Rand and feminism, etc.

There should be money used to aid scholars in doing research, writing books, or in transcribing the vast archive of taped lecture series and CDs to book format. What about research for a theory of psychological abstractionism in early childhood? What about getting all of that stuff on tape into books, audiobooks, pdfs? What about research on Rand's college transcripts or what happened to her family, or things like that?

There should be organized conferences and classes given a few times a year, where anyone can attend. I know there is OCON but that is mostly a flop. ARI campus has, what, around 20 courses and it's been around how long? That's pathetic!

Luckily there are a lot of Rand scholars out there operating independently and there is the Ayn Rand Society and Atlas Society and other types of organizations, there's the Journal of AR Studies but they shot themselves in the foot too after putting themselves behind a paywall. There's plenty of ways to figure out how to make money while still offering free content. It would be nice if there was an effective organization that did more than fly Yaron Brook around to give talks (god bless him though.)

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I thought I'd add my two cents anyway.

In most places, you hear much talk of "responsibility", which all too often means little more than doing as the neighbors expect. However, real responsibility consists of recognizing that one's future is within one's control and acting on that recognition.

Unfortunately, most people are taught from infancy that real responsibility is impossible, that their future is largely out of their control, and that acting for their future is mostly hopeless. (Hence the proliferation of government programs intended to compensate for everyone's supposed fundamental incompetence.)

A belief in one's fundamental incompetence affects every aspect of a person's mental functioning, to the point of being inseparable from it under ordinary circumstances. It becomes second nature, not to be acknowledged or analyzed, much less challenged.

Along comes Objectivism, which says that every person IS fundamentally competent and that real responsibility IS a moral imperative. To the person who has absorbed the contrary view, Objectivism feels false. It calls into question the fundamentals of his life, his life's choices -- especially his abdication of those choices to others. But, fundamentally, it tells him that he has been and still is BAD.

Some people -- the young, those committed to intellectual honesty -- can face what they see as an accusation of evil and consider whether that accusation is true and what, if anything, to do in response to it. But most people will not. Instead, they will engage in rationalizing -- which they see as reasoning -- to justify their life's choices and their beliefs. Worse, they don't even see it as rationalizing; it's what they've been taught as reasoning. In the end they persuade themselves that the fault is in Objectivism, not in themselves.

(This is rarely intentional evil. Most people with those beliefs have had them since early childhood; they had no real opportunity to see their falsehood. Part of their programming is a subversion of their rational faculty, which keeps them from seeing their errors, and which allows them to use rationalization in place of reasoning and not see that this is what they are doing.)

People who have been taught to believe in their fundamental incompetence live with fear and guilt. But no one can survive that way for very long. It is a psychological necessity to bury those feelings -- and the awareness that causes them. This necessity empowers and underpins their entire belief system, and also gives seeming strength to the rationalizations that keep out challenges to their beliefs.

The ultimate reason that Objectivism is unpopular isn't its intellectual content per se. It is the fear and guilt that it stirs up in most people. Objectivism isn't, in their view, merely a mistaken philosophy, it is an EVIL philosophy, one that declares that they're living a lie, one which stirs up truly painful feelings. Rather than face reality, they put the blame on Objectivism. Objectivism's unpopularity is simply another version of blaming the messenger.

 

Edited by Invictus2017
deleting garbage at the end of the message
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Invictus2017 said:

The ultimate reason that Objectivism is unpopular isn't its intellectual content per se. It is the fear and guilt that it stirs up in most people. Objectivism isn't, in their view, merely a mistaken philosophy, it is an EVIL philosophy, one that declares that they're living a lie, one which stirs up truly painful feelings. Rather than face reality, they put the blame on Objectivism. Objectivism's unpopularity is simply another version of blaming the messenger.

 

Interesting. That implies that most people want to live a lie. I see more and more of it but I don't want to believe it. Mainly because I hate the idea that on the last day of my life, I realize that I had lied to my self all the time. (actually that I was lied to, tricked, defrauded ... by myself). I think, "don't others feel the same way?"

Yes, I have seen people who think Rand is evil. But not because they read her stuff, more because of titles like "Virtue of Selfishness" and the seeming preference for defending big businesses in the media. Unfortunately, some of these businesses had gained some of their wealth due to cronyism and so there is that association.

I don't think they hate her because of what they understand, I think they hate her because they don't understand her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Interesting. That implies that most people want to live a lie. I see more and more of it but I don't want to believe it.

Not really.  They don't consciously realize that they're living a lie.  This is one of the many fact that people repress, because the alternative is too painful.  Accepting Objectivism would require confronting the fact that they're living a lie.

20 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:


I don't think they hate her because of what they understand, I think they hate her because they don't understand her.

Consciously, they do not understand her -- and it is a salf-induced failure to understand.  However, subconsciously, they see the challenge to how they've chosen to live their lives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Invictus2017 said:

Unfortunately, most people are taught from infancy that real responsibility is impossible, that their future is largely out of their control, and that acting for their future is mostly hopeless. (Hence the proliferation of government programs intended to compensate for everyone's supposed fundamental incompetence.)

I don't know of anyone who thinks this. Some people, but I don't know where you get most people. The issue is what people say responsibility is. Most would probably say responsibility is being altruistic or helping people for their own sake. Others don't seem to think at all, so those types turn more tribalistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

4 hours ago, Invictus2017 said:

Unfortunately, most people are taught from infancy that real responsibility is impossible, that their future is largely out of their control, and that acting for their future is mostly hopeless. (Hence the proliferation of government programs intended to compensate for everyone's supposed fundamental incompetence.)

I don't know of anyone who thinks this. Some people, but I don't know where you get most people. The issue is what people say responsibility is. Most would probably say responsibility is being altruistic or helping people for their own sake. Others don't seem to think at all, so those types turn more tribalistic.

Early in my post, I distinguished what people call responsibility and real responsibility.  Yes, most people believe  in something they call responsibility but, as you note, it has little to do with responsibility in any real sense.  So, even though most people claim to believe in responsibility, they do not believe in real responsibility.

I get the "most people" by observation.  Not of what people say about responsibility, but whether their actions are consistent with a belief in real responsibility.  The typical American, for example, gives lip service to responsibility, but believes that the government should provide social security and health care.  A sense of entitlement is a certain sign of a lack of belief in responsibility.  One can see this lack of responsibility throughout Western culture, in everything from entitlements to the victim culture to the "I can't help it" in response to so-called addictions.

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is still responsibility as far as working hard towards something that matters to them. It's not as well thought out as our ideas of responsibility to oneself, but they don't say responsibility is impossible. It's not "fake" responsibility, it's just a weak concept that leads to personal conflicts. The only people I've seen say that responsibility is impossible are radical leftists who think capitalism denies one from any possible sense of responsibility. Most people do praise responsibility, even if they seem to avoid it in themselves. Government handouts are due to a sense that it *is* responsibility to be "in it together", not some avoidance of responsibility. (This is all anecdotal, maybe your area really is different?) 

As for your line on addictions, you might be overlooking other reasons why it looks like people don't like responsibility. There are real chemical addictions that after a mistake and using something like heroin a few times, a person will often be addicted can't just use more willpower. Beating addictions takes more than wanting responsibility - it takes knowing medical treatments and the proper routines and habits. What people don't know are those routines. Same goes to Americans in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2015 at 7:16 AM, Dormin111 said:

I am really surprised by the reposes.

Well, we are talking about how so many people could be so indifferent to truth, justice and their own damn hides.

On 8/19/2015 at 12:13 AM, Dormin111 said:

 

 

On 8/19/2015 at 10:14 AM, Nicky said:

So what's the point in constantly fighting it out with well known liars? What will that accomplish?

They'll think twice about their next lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2017 at 2:49 PM, Easy Truth said:

Interesting. That implies that most people want to live a lie. I see more and more of it but I don't want to believe it. 

...

I don't think they hate her because of what they understand, I think they hate her because they don't understand her.

"Forgive me father, for I know not what I do - and please don't tell me!"

 

They don't want to understand her. To understand her would mean to know all of the different things they're doing wrong, which would leave them with no excuse for continuing to do wrong. When you try to explain it to them they'll go just so far, until they glimpse the ramifications of what you're about to say, and then they shut down.

They don't want to know.

 

That's why we need to focus on young people who might not have grown fond of being evil, yet. They're the ones who'll listen.

And it's still a good idea to call out blatant lies, wherever you see them; it'll be much easier to get the truth out with less of those flying all over the place. Just don't expect the liars themselves to have any miraculous change of heart.

 

18 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Well, it is still responsibility as far as working hard towards something that matters to them. It's not as well thought out as our ideas of responsibility to oneself, but they don't say responsibility is impossible. It's not "fake" responsibility, it's just a weak concept that leads to personal conflicts.

Most of the people I graduated school with are that way. Most of them still live with their parents and about half of them have a job. 

That is not responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Most of the people I graduated school with are that way. Most of them still live with their parents and about half of them have a job. 

That is not responsibility.

Belief in responsibility is not the same as attaining responsibility. I don't think most people get there, but I think most people think it is possible and real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2017 at 12:24 PM, DonAthos said:

What we need -- what any great product needs -- is sales. We need to examine and re-examine (and re-examine again) our means and methods of communicating our ideas to a world which is frankly starving for reason, for peace, for happiness. We must continue to improve upon our approach until we succeed.

All we really need is saturation; as much of it as possible. If the older generations are mostly beyond help then let's just make sure everyone in America under 20 years old knows the word "Objectivism" and where to go to learn more about it.

And then we wait.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Belief in responsibility is not the same as attaining responsibility. I don't think most people get there, but I think most people think it is possible and real.

Responsibility in what sense? There is always a context to the word responsibility One can't be responsible for everything. You have to choose your battles.

Responsible for what? I can hear the response, "one's life". But what specifically means that you are acting responsibly especially when things are being taken care of for you and your life is running fine. Maybe some of those who remain at home are doing the "responsible" thing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

All we really need is saturation; as much of it as possible. If the older generations are mostly beyond help then let's just make sure everyone in America under 20 years old knows the word "Objectivism" and where to go to learn more about it.

 

So the premise is that it is impossible to change "older" peoples minds. I think we give up too soon.

In fact, I think we are not "good educators".

Objectivists suck at teaching Objectivism.

Edited by Easy Truth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...