Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

JASKN

Admin
  • Posts

    2624
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    JASKN reacted to Repairman in What would Mexico's failure mean for the US?   
    The most important purpose a transcontinental border wall would serve is to meet the desires and expectations of the American electorate. Regardless of any conversation about the popular vote versus the legitimacy of President Trump, it has been my experience that the Americans who voted for Trump want that wall. It has nothing to do with economic or security benefits; it's a matter of democracy. Trump supporters were gleeful at the thought of the wall. Now, as the fog of campaign rhetoric is lifting, and these people are becoming slightly more aware of the fact that this wall will be one more expensive boondoggle for the taxpayers to bear, they continue to cling to the vision. Will the wall and Trump's other isolationist policies lead to economic and security disaster? They don't care: Build the wall. It will make them feel better.
    Here's a fantasy, although not so crazy: A fortification rivaling the Maginot Line and the Chinese Great Wall spans the roughly 1,954 miles of America's southern border. It does exactly that which it was designed to do. The cost of building, maintenance, and staffing it with troops exceeds anything our budgets could sustain. It would make a perfectly good tourist site; visitors from China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia could have their pictures taken while posing atop or in front of the wall brandishing the Trump logo. The heirs of the Trump dynasty would own and operate the hotels and casinos that punctuates the serpentine structure. As our descendants revert to savagery as a means of survival, they can sit around the campfires, and tell their children of the once powerful American Empire, and how the second coming of the Trump-King will once again make America Great!
  2. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in Reblogged:Muslim Ban, Terrorism Ban: What’s the Difference?   
    And then the essence of statist tyranny enacted in the name of democratic will. The essence of everything that Rand fought so hard against.
    Who needs Galt's generator when Rand is spinning so fast in her grave.
  3. Like
    JASKN reacted to Nicky in Reblogged:Muslim Ban, Terrorism Ban: What’s the Difference?   
    This statement is the essence of collectivism.
  4. Like
    JASKN reacted to DavidOdden in Reblogged:Muslim Ban, Terrorism Ban: What’s the Difference?   
    Colleagues, I suggest that two radically different issues are raised here. One is the broader question of when would it be proper to exclude an individual for holding bad ideas – as discussed in this thread. The other pertains to what Trump actually ordered (not the speech part, but the law part). It's hard to tell what the order actually means – primarily it is an order to study the question. However, it does contain concrete prohibitions, one of which is a bit strange (it refers people from "such countries", which are not actually identified under the law, and the law refers to humanitarian waiver of the exclusion of aliens using fraudulent documents). The second concrete prohibition is that all Syrian nationals (including lawful permanent residents) are barred from entry into the US, meaning that if you are here, Syrian, and not a citizen, you may nor re-enter. A possible exception would be Kurds, because under Syrian law (and I can't verify if this is still the law in Syria, but it was a dozen years ago), Kurds residing in Syria are not Syrian citizens, thus would not be Syrian nationals. However, the administration probably will not apply Syria's interpretation of "Syrian national".
    The ban on Syrians is free of religious conditions; IMO Hurd missed the boat in implying that there is anything at all good about the order. The last time I checked, nationality, in Syria, is an unchosen fact of the race of one's parents.
     
  5. Like
    JASKN reacted to Nicky in What would Mexico's failure mean for the US?   
    Every time Trump expresses hostility towards Mexico, the peso takes a significant tumble. This has been happening for months, so, surely, even Trump noticed the correlation by now. Whether it's just a negotiating tactic or destabilizing the Mexican economy is his end game, he's clearly trying to hurt Mexico, on purpose. And there are voices on the right cheering it on, as if Mexico's failure would be some kind of victory for the US.
    So what happens if it works? Clearly, Mexico is at the United States' mercy. Just the threat of a trade war has caused the peso to drop 12% over the last three months, with experts predicting a 50% drop if the rhetoric escalates. What happens if Trump blows up NAFTA, starts a trade war, Mexico devolves into hyperinflation, and the already unpopular government is overthrown or replaced by populists or radical socialists like in Venezuela? Or worse, a civil war between a weakened government and the cartels?
    Could the US end up with a failed state, like Syria or Venezuela, on its doorstep, with tens of millions of economic migrants, and cartel soldiers and Islamic terrorists hiding among them, flooding across the border? And would it be possible for a populist demagogue to exploit that crisis, and expand his power beyond constitutional limits?
    And, even if Trump gets voted out of office in four years, could the next President deal with the crisis he inherits? Would there be a way to walk back the failure of the Mexican economy, and stabilize the region? Or will the US be faced with permanent war on its southern border?
  6. Like
    JASKN reacted to DavidOdden in Does Capitalism Lead to Men Living for the Sake of Other Men?   
    Employees obvious have the freedom to do whatever they want. If they don't like a particular WalMart, or any WalMart, they can seek employment at World Market, or Target, or any number of other places. Or they can be unemployed. Or they can start a business selling pink cat-ear hats online, or they can create a new operating system that will revolutionize business, or whatever it is that they can do to survive. Or they can decide that there are no more values left for them on this planet, and they can end their existence. They are free to do whatever they want, according to their values.
    I can't honestly say that more than two or three of them are actually working for their own sake. I do personally know of two who are working for their own sake. The rest of them may (in the imaginary sense of "may") have some bizarre self-sacrificial ethos whereby they irrationally feel that they should sacrifice their time and labor so that some another person will thrive, but that is just such an unimaginable and arbitrary idea that I really don't see that there is any basis for imputing such beliefs to those people. In the case of all of the people who I personally know and have discussed the matter of working retail, I can tell you that their reasons are entirely selfish: they want money and benefits, and indeed they do get that.
    I do know that there are a number of people who do live for the sake of others, especially those who are high on volunteering and giving back to The People. So I don't deny that there are such people, but honest employees of retail do not deserve to be castigated for their selfish choice to live for their own sake.
  7. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in Pleasure and Value   
    I think you're trying to focus on the point-in-time thing we should try to optimize. Rand's "Objectivist Ethics" highlights two key linkages:
    first, that this pleasure is -- in turn -- based on our biology.. on the survival of life (today we might speak of this in terms of the role of pain/pleasure in evolution). "Good" (i.e. recommended action) is thus (mostly) tied to survival in its original cause second, she takes the focus away from point-in-time pleasure, to acknowledge that there are causal links between things. Seeing the pain in a dentist's visit is not good enough, we have to understand the pleasures and pains from the visit as a causally linked set. That's how we get to: "how to we get a better mix". The decisions move from considering a single thing (imagine someone making an excuse not to visit the dentist, because he's focusing on the pain alone). "Good" is the concept that embraces the evaluation of such mixes, and going far beyond these small bundles, to encompass one's life. Good it is the integrated evaluation of pain and pleasure. Only by starting from these two ideas can Rand end up saying Productive Work is one of the highest ideals. That's quite a huge integration that includes hundreds of observations that aren't mentioned in the essay. That's her key achievement: not her focus on pleasure -- which hedonists already took a shot at -- but explaining how we go from there to a message that sounds like "work hard".
    The hedonists had already praised pleasure, but nobody can take a short-range approach too seriously. Aristotle spoke of Eudemia, and his golden mean is one way of conceptualizing the various choices we have to make all the time. The Epicureans had spoken about enjoying life in a relaxed way. These were attempts integrate the idea that selfish pleasure is the core of Ethics with other observations about the world.
    The Stoics took a different tack: they recognized that men are driven to do "big things" which cannot be explained by "live a relaxed life" or '"do only what you need to be comfortable". They admired these men. At some level, they were admiring productivity, but could not quite explain why it was the good. They ended up with a somewhat "duty ethics". The Bhagavad Gita got to the same point too: work (karma) is good because it is, because it is a universal law. They both assumed a feedback: where the universe rewards us for doing our duty. The only alternative to work seemed asceticism, and Eastern philosophies thought that was good too...but, we can't all be ascetics. So, working hard was what the typical person had to do... just because. There was no tie to happiness, leave along to pleasure.
    Rand stepped through the horns of this ancient dilemma. 
    In summary: I agree with you that pleasure is key, but it is key the way a dot of paint is key to a painting, or a word is key to Atlas. It's a starting point, but the bulk of Ethics is explaining how it comes together across our lives.
    Post-script:  I think your focus on pleasure is important though, because some people read Fountainhead and Atlas as enshrining the virtue of hard work, but do not keep the link to pleasure and happiness in mind. By dropping that link, and by seeing work as an end in itself, drops the crucial justification for work. Work then is a duty: an end that we just do, because it is good... don't ask any more questions!
    This is why I think the recent moves by The Undercurrent/Strive: abandoning the focus on Politics, and linking Objectivist Ethics to individual happiness, is great.
     
     
  8. Like
    JASKN reacted to Grames in The Gettier counterexamples to Justified True Belief as knowledge   
    But correspondence can often be a matter of degree.  How much correspondence is enough?  According to Rand perception is essentially measurement, and measurements are always and only to within a certain range of precision.   So then even our automatic and infallible perceptions do not correspond perfectly with reality.  In Objectivist epistemology concepts omit measurements completely, so the remaining correspondence of a concept to reality takes an entire book to explain.  Yet knowledge is still possible to finite and fallible human consciousness because the degree of correspondence required is not perfect correspondence but the lesser standard of usefulness.  There is a useful and justifying degree of correspondence when our knowledge can explain without contradiction, can predict reliably, and ultimately serves the practical end-in-itself of living.
  9. Like
    JASKN reacted to Grames in The Gettier counterexamples to Justified True Belief as knowledge   
    Newtonian physics is a perfect example for this discussion.  Newtonian physics was and continues to be true whenever relativistic or quantum considerations don't apply or are negligible.  Newtonian physics is not now and never was nor will ever be falsified, it was merely "special cased" into a broader theory.  It was an expansion of knowledge to learn cases that Newtonian physics did not predict correctly, not a loss of knowledge.  For example, Einstein predicting correctly the amount of precession in the orbit of Mercury was an important test and justification for accepting the General Theory of Relativity as true.  See Wikipedia Tests of General Relativity for more context.  Out of 574 arcseconds per century of measured precession it is Newtonian physics that accounts for 531 of them and Relativity is not a substitute theory that provides another way to get those 531, it merely explains 43 of the difference between 574 and 531 which was previously a mystery.
  10. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from DonAthos in ADVICE FOR LEARNING AYN RANDS IDEAS?   
    Two basic precursors to learning are your own personal interests (for picking what to learn about) and your approach to new ideas. For maximum brain flow, go with what interests you most. For maximum brain saturation, question everything honestly until the answer becomes part of you (and even then, question from time to time).
    My biggest personal setbacks to learning were/are rationalism and becoming emotionally charged about potential errors in my thinking or conclusions.
  11. Like
    JASKN reacted to DavidOdden in Are the phrases "empirical science" and "empirical evidence" redundant?   
    A good starting point would be OPAR ch. 1, which says “Science is systematic knowledge gained by the use of reason based on observation.” Science thus includes “specialized science” and philosophy. It differs from mere observation, which is not systematic. It differs from religion and emotion, which are not based on reason or observation. Philosophy (actual philosophy, not purported philosophy) is a science: again, OPAR ch. 1 “philosophy is a system of ideas. By its nature as an integrating science…”, Peikoff in “The analytic-synthetic dichotomy”: “Epistemology, the theory of knowledge, the science that defines the rules by which man is to acquire knowledge of facts…”. Rand says (“Philosophy: who needs it?”) that “Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible”.

     
    In the broader context, “science” refers to systematic knowledge gained by the use of reason based on observation, but in the narrower context where philosophy is distinguished, we would contrast philosophy and special sciences. In the appendix to ITOE, “Philosophic vs. Scientific issues”, Rand begins by noting “Philosophy by its nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment. Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true”. Philosophy is not “the art of just making crap up”. In this context (which presupposes the distinction between science and philosophy), the simple term “science” is used where elsewhere “special science” might be used. This second sense of “science” as special science, specialized knowledge, is what is ordinarily called “science” especially by people who haven’t read OPAR and ITOE. Philosophy is science, in the broader sense, but not in the narrower sense.

     
    “Evidence” is not, as far as I know, defined in Objectivism, but observation of how the word is used shows that it refers to knowledge in relation to a proposition – a fact supports a proposition, or it contradicts a proposition. A bit of knowledge can depend heavily on an immediate observation – “I just saw an eagle!” – or it can depend heavily on applying knowledge to previously gained knowledge (insert your favorite mathematical proof here). When people speak of “empirical evidence”, they mean knowledge that depends heavily on immediate observation. “Empirical evidence” brings us back to the axiomatic, because the distance from the axiomatic to the conclusion is shortened. All knowledge rests on observation, but some knowledge is separated by quite a distance from observation. It is true that some people treat philosophy as non-empirical, which allows patent nonsense to be promulgated as “philosophy”.

     
    You have to consider the concept “evidence” from two perspectives as well, depending on whether it has been evaluated. People often look at the observation as being the “evidence”, in which case since you can’t deny the axiomatic, you end up with a very goofy notion of “balancing” evidence, and seeing truth as scalar. Which, b.t.w., is poppycock. This notion that evidence is the raw observation is wrong. An observation has to be logically evaluated and integrated with all of your knowledge, before it becomes “evidence” for or against anything. “Uncontrolled observations” then are not evidence, because there has been no validation of the relation between the observation and the proposition that the observation stands in a supposed evidentiary relation to. How does that observation integrate with other observations (all other observations, not just the ones of interest to the advocate of the position)?

     
    The specific form of stupidity that you’ve identified is failing to consider alternative. There are alternative propositions that are consistent with the observation, and those alternatives are arbitrarily rejected. That means that the resulting emotion of “certainty” is achieved at the expense of acquiring knowledge.
  12. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in A Definitive Criticism of Objectivist Epistemology   
    It is relevant though it is a different topic. It is relevant because it is about epistemological approach: i.e. your approach to the topic and to reading and understanding the text. 
    If you read Rand you'll see her speak of man/humans as being rational animals. Fine; but, she also thinks that is a defining factor. So, prima facie, one could assume she is saying that non-rational humans (or at least lunatics) are not human. In fact, why would one not read this as an obvious implication?
    Similarly, you interpret Rand as saying that there must be multiple actual existing concretes in order to come up with a concept. In fact, a concept is like a set in math. Of course the crucial reason we have the notion of sets is to think about multi-member sets, and then about intersections etc. This does not preclude empty sets or sets with 1 member. It does not preclude sets that start out with 10 members and then they all die out and we can still think of the set. 
    We can come up with a concept even though there are zero existents in that concept; but, we would never be doing this whole process if the classification of various entities into some organized manner was not a crucial human need. 
  13. Like
    JASKN reacted to Grames in A Definitive Criticism of Objectivist Epistemology   
    Here is a somewhat different tack on critiquing the offered critique (refering to objCrit2.pdf).
    The paper lists no author.   There is no bibliographic list of works cited.  Abstract starts out "We ..." but the first paragraph is "I ...".   Abstract makes a claim about finding internal inconsistency in Rand's epistemology, but then the first thing the author does is substitute his own definitions for Rand's terms in the name of "neutrality", immediately nullifying the entire point of the paper. The abstract is in error where it claims concepts must subsume two entities, Rand's definition is "two or more units". Rejecting the requirement that every concept subsume two or more entities is irrelevant in relation to Rand's system, doing neither good nor harm. That's my superficial and cursory take from a brief page-through and reading of the first page.  However, ambition is a good thing and I appreciate SpookyKitty's effort in making a pdf of his article.
  14. Like
    JASKN reacted to MisterSwig in A Definitive Criticism of Objectivist Epistemology   
    This whole thread is about imaginary creatures that fly around inside our heads and breathe statements.
  15. Like
    JASKN reacted to KALADIN in A Definitive Criticism of Objectivist Epistemology   
    From your paper (blue is mine):
    "Abstract: We show that Rand’s theory of concept formation, more specifically, the requirement that every concept subsume at least two entities..."
    That requirement is not a part of Ayn Rand's theory of concept formation. Rand endorses metaphysical pluralism and never legislates entities as the only kind of existent which can serve as a unit. Because the argumentative vehicle for your criticism of Objectivism is (entirely) the rejection of this requirement you fundamentally miss the mark.
    "Definition 1. A set of statements Σ is philosophically neutral with respect to some set of philosophical positions Π if and only if all of the statements in Σ are logically independent..."
    If indeed "the truth is the whole" then logical independence makes since only as a concept referring to a subject's lack of knowledge (like 'randomness'). This means then that only when you can not identify, say, the logical dependence of higher-abstractions upon more primitive ones is it possible to be philosophically neutral towards those more complex abstractions. Interesting.
    "Both true and false statements are representations of reality."
    One wonders at the standard of appeal by which we come to distinguish truth and falsity.
    "If subjects represent things, then predicates represent concepts."
    Your entire section pertaining to "Definition 3." is very confused. It is merely because the three statements you make use of in turn make use of proper nouns (which can not represent concepts) as subjects that you feel licensed to regard subjects as necessarily non-representative of concepts. Subjects are things. Predicates are composed of concepts.
    "Definition 4. A concept is a mental phenomenon that which, given a subject, outputs a statement about the subject."
    This definition, if held also as an operational definition and in conjunction with your "Definition 2.", leads to the impossibility of the beginning of concept-formation; one would require the constituent concepts of the outputted statement before one could have the concept which outputs that statement. Or maybe you think concepts output things to and exist apart from knowing subjects.
    "It is possible to apply the concept “a red planet” to Earth and thereby obtain the false statement, 'The Earth is a red planet'."
    This whole passage is ridiculously messy and your quotation actually makes pretense to concepts and predicates being identical but a concept is not the kind of thing that can be "said of some subject" unless you consider, per your own phraseology, every phenomenon "a mental phenomenon".
    "The third is that a concept does not represent anything . . .Instead, a concept is what connects statements to subjects."
    How is something which represents nothing capable of connecting or "outputting statements" about anything? And moreover how does a concept connect "statements to subjects" if, again by our own definition, a statement is already essentially composed in part by a subject? Perhaps what you meant was to connect statements to subjects which are alien to the ones of the original statement's composition but then again what would your non-representational, non-referential connective tissue even mean?
    "The role that these axioms serve in the overall analysis is to . . . 3) establish the truth of the conclusion."
    See: Rationalism.
    "For example 'red and a planet' and 'not neither red nor a planet' are equivalent predicates because: 'Mars is red and a planet' is true if and only if 'Mars is not neither red nor a planet' is also true, 'Earth is red and a planet' is true if and only if 'Earth is not neither red nor a planet' is true, ... , and so on for every other such statement."
    Therefore, according to you (in virtue of logical dependency being a bar to neutrality), the determination of any equivalent predicates can not be philosophically neutral and must necessarily be "biasing the investigation beforehand". Also interesting.
    "Axiom 7. (Axiom of Concept Representation) For all concepts c and all predicates ϕ and all predicates ψ, if ϕ represents c and if ϕ is equivalent to ψ, then ψ also represents c. What the above axiom basically comes down to is that people understand logic. If one understands every statement like 'Mars is red and a planet' then one cannot also fail to understand any logically equivalent statement such as 'Mars is not neither red nor a planet'."
    Did you forget earlier where you said "Note that the word 'is' is not part of the predicate"? Note that the logical equivalence of these statements depends exclusively on "predicates ϕ and ψ" containing forms of the verb to be.
    "Since there is an infinite variety of predicates equivalent to each predicate..."
    Being allowed to say this means rejecting your "Note that..." assertion just quoted above insofar as the very possibility of pairs of equivalent predicates depends precisely on what you've already banished from the predicate.
    I admit to being bored at this point and have decided to skip to the part of your paper where you supposedly actually talk about Objectivism.
    " The Objectivist theory of concept formation makes at least the following claims:"
    Here we go...
    "Claim 20. For every concept, there are at least two (non-mental) subjects subsumed by the concept."
    I guess the concept of concept isn't possible in Objectivism. *facepalm*
    "Claim 21. Existence exists. That is, the concept represented by the predicate 'has existence' exists."
    First, the theory of concept formation does not claim "existence exists". Second, that is perfectly not what the existence axiom means and your characterization of "has existence" makes pretense to existence as an attribute of things, an assertion which is clearly repudiated in Chapter 6 of ITOE where Rand says, "Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents." [emphasis original]
    "Claim 22. A is A. That is, the concept represented by the predicate 'has identity' exists."
    See again response to "Claim 21" and substitute "existence exists" with "A is A" and "has existence" with "has identity".
    "The predicate 'has existence' will be denoted by ex and the predicate 'has identity' will be denoted by id."
    So we finally get to the part in your paper where you actually deal with Objectivism and you present three claims its theory of concept formation makes - all of them being abjectly wrong and clearly contradicted by primary Oist literature - then finish your "criticism" with three theorems all resting on perfectly inadmissible predications (e.g. "has identity", "has existence"). I don't know what it is you are critiquing (and I'm fairly sure you aren't either) but it isn't Objectivist Epistemology and it definitively isn't definitive.
  16. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in What books should I read: I want to get more blacks interested in objectivism.   
    I suppose you need to read the books that your target cohort respects. Not sure what that would be: the Bible, Malcolm X, Frederick Douglas, ... just throwing some names out, you can replace with actual examples. Do rap fans have some books they love? 
    It helps to start from the context of your target. If I want to convince an average Muslim about an idea, it would help if I knew something about the Quran. 
    Of course, that doesn't mean you'll be able to convince the person. If you tried convincing a hundred people and not one changed their minds, it would be no surprise. On the other hand, if there's some particular person you'd like to convince, then understanding their context would give you a step up.
  17. Like
    JASKN reacted to MisterSwig in What books should I read: I want to get more blacks interested in objectivism.   
    Racism is a hot topic right now. There is an article on it in The Virtue of Selfishness. But I'd tailor suggestions to personal preference, no matter what race a person is. If they like reading fiction, set them up with one of Rand's novels instead.
  18. Like
    JASKN reacted to Nicky in What books should I read: I want to get more blacks interested in objectivism.   
    Black Americans are part of American culture. All those ideas you list (revisionist history, affirmative action, etc.) are the products of American culture, not black culture. Blacks didn't come up with them, (mostly white) Americans did.
    The way to change black people's minds is through changing the overall culture. There's no reason to focus on one racial group or another.
  19. Like
    JASKN reacted to Repairman in What books should I read: I want to get more blacks interested in objectivism.   
    Dadmonson,
    Persuasion is not an easy task for many of us. In most cases, an individual must come to his/her own senses, and realize that they are an individual. To inform them about Objectivism may not be necessary; it may be best to let people be as they are. I know of people who would be quite naturally inclined to approve of Objectivism, but for the fact that they are weighed down with the conventional challenges of life, and won't take the time to read Ayn Rand. While there are only a few of these people that I know of personally, such people tend to take the necessary actions to achieving their goals and happiness. There is no reason to impress them with any details, when they already follow a rational code of behavior. Generally, I let them know that I support their lifestyle, and I might even ask some question to find out if they've any knowledge of Ayn Rand. 
    Are you sure these things need to be dealt with? In what way? If a greater understanding of history is what you're looking for, there are many books you could read until you become an expert on the subjects. But my experiences with African-Americans is that their metaphysics are firmly rooted in their religious background. Selling Objectivism to such people would be nearly impossible. If you meet anyone openly atheist/agnostic, exudes confidence in their industriousness, and disapproves of the welfare state, you might find an ally regardless as to the person's complexion. Knowledge is power. I hope you find as much knowledge as will inform you about the history of the march to freedom that led to the Declaration of Independence, and the continuing complexity of achieving universal liberty, for your own sake. Don't be disappointed that people resist reason; it's their life. Freeing one's mind is only a start.
  20. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in Future of Objectivism   
    Society -- almost all the 6 billion people on earth -- accept altruism and tribalism as a fundamental moral ideas. A large number of them accept varying degrees of mysticism. There's a lot of inertia there, and it will take a few lifetimes to move it. Of course, Rand has already had an impact: one can trace a vein in the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This was often mixed with the rise of some bad things too: like a particularly religious GOP. Further, the great recession has damaged the brand image of free-markets, and we're now in a reactionary, populist phase.  This could well reverse again...say within a decade. but, that's nowhere near having a major impact within 2 or 3 decades.
  21. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in Future of Objectivism   
    I remember someone on an ARI panel making a somewhat off the cuff remark to a question about promoting Objectivism. I think the context must have been that the questioner was not interested in a career as a professor or as an activist. The panelist said something to the effect: well, if you become rich and successful in your field and credit Objectivism for your success, that itself could have an impact... and you'll be able to fund people who want to play a more activist role.
  22. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from Tenderlysharp in Future of Objectivism   
    I have personally not experienced any kind of success convincing another person about the logic behind Objectivism and why the philosophy is The Way, The Truth, and The Light. Maybe it's too wordy for most people when presented that way, maybe there aren't enough social scenarios where people accept deeper conversations, I don't know the reason, but a brick wall is hit every time.
    During the past couple of years I've given up the "lectures" altogether and replaced them with one-off comments in normal conversation, where I really try to think about everything from as realistic a standpoint as I can and then take a second to sum it up succinctly with a somewhat philosophical-style comment, delivered in my own words/formulation for the conversation only. People have really responded to this method, it feels like magic compared to the old strategy.
    At the same time, I've focused more on my own life than on an Objectivst agenda (I'm part of a trend, I guess?), with several benefits: a better life, from which to draw examples, and a better understanding of the purpose of philosophy, and why someone would follow principles to begin with, from which I can formulate my summations.
    I'm beginning to think there is no other way to get people to legitimately change their views. There has to be something to look at in real life for an "aha!" moment to happen. More emphasis should be placed on Rand's life success and enduring influence as support for the validity of her philosophy. More Objectivists should emphasize their own real life benefits following a stellar philosophy.
  23. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from Repairman in Future of Objectivism   
    I have personally not experienced any kind of success convincing another person about the logic behind Objectivism and why the philosophy is The Way, The Truth, and The Light. Maybe it's too wordy for most people when presented that way, maybe there aren't enough social scenarios where people accept deeper conversations, I don't know the reason, but a brick wall is hit every time.
    During the past couple of years I've given up the "lectures" altogether and replaced them with one-off comments in normal conversation, where I really try to think about everything from as realistic a standpoint as I can and then take a second to sum it up succinctly with a somewhat philosophical-style comment, delivered in my own words/formulation for the conversation only. People have really responded to this method, it feels like magic compared to the old strategy.
    At the same time, I've focused more on my own life than on an Objectivst agenda (I'm part of a trend, I guess?), with several benefits: a better life, from which to draw examples, and a better understanding of the purpose of philosophy, and why someone would follow principles to begin with, from which I can formulate my summations.
    I'm beginning to think there is no other way to get people to legitimately change their views. There has to be something to look at in real life for an "aha!" moment to happen. More emphasis should be placed on Rand's life success and enduring influence as support for the validity of her philosophy. More Objectivists should emphasize their own real life benefits following a stellar philosophy.
  24. Like
    JASKN reacted to Repairman in Future of Objectivism   
    I would like to see more well recognized persons speak about the influence of Ayn Rand. Someone with celebrity status is more likely to draw attention among the younger audience. This would make it possible for a victory, whether major or minor, in the cultural battle.  Off hand, I can only think of a few that have made mention of Ayn Rand in a positive light: Neil Peart, (drummer for Rush), and Penn Jillette, (Los Vegas illusionist, and media star.) Perhaps there are others, but these are the only ones of which I know.
    That being said, it would reinforce my optimism to see more people identifying themselves as atheist; I wish to see fewer people assuming that there must be some good in anyone who believes in any form of deity.
    I wish to see more people acknowledging the rights of the individual, and positively acknowledging their own status as a minority of one, rather than demanding rights for a collective, of which they are a mere percentage. I seek the day when identity politics is consider passe. I wish to see more people say with conviction: "You damn right I'm looking out for myself!"
    If, one day, more nations develop institutions allowing stability within their borders, it will likely be the result of reforming laws that stifle entrepreneurial activity. Greater economic stability would naturally lead to domestic and military stability. A true meritocracy would emerge, and more prosperity for those who've earned it. 
    While this all seems a bit beyond the scope of my present-day vision, it doesn't do any harm to fantasize. But if this vision of the future does come about, I won't care it is called Objectivism, or merely a revision of good ole common sense. I can only suppose that some intelligent individuals will rediscover the 20th century writer who espoused the philosophy that respected the virtues of intellectual honesty and industrious action. And I hope they'll more than: "She was ahead of her times."
  25. Like
    JASKN reacted to Nicky in Future of Objectivism   
    Capitalism isn't Ayn Rand's invention, true, and she doesn't deserve credit for all the benefits of capitalism. Capitalism has been around before her, and would've been around without her, in some form. Not just in the US, but in the whole non-communist world.
    That said, Rand deserves credit for her moral defense of capitalism, and helping clarify what capitalism is and what it isn't, to some extent, in the minds of her small number of, but often influential, followers.
    Some of those followers have made her influence pretty wide spread. Not among the masses that make up the nations of the world (that's a cultural victory that is yet to be won), but behind the scenes. You have to remember, for instance, that capitalism in Asia isn't really due to nations like SK, Taiwan, Thailand, etc. developing it on their own. The work ethic and sense of justice ingrained in local cultures was key to the spectacular economic growth once capitalism was introduced, sure, but the smooth, efficient introduction of capitalism is due to western influence and constant, careful US guidance. And Alan Greenspan, the man sitting at the center of the western economic system for several decades, during the development of the Asian "tiger" economies, NAFTA, ASEAN, the European Union, etc. was a student of Ayn Rand's. As were, I'm sure, many others in the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush administrations, and probably even in the Thatcher, Major, Kohl, etc. administrations.
    These were the people who guided the world towards globalization (which is just a moniker for global capitalism), and built a world where there's nothing anti-capitalists on the left or right (whether they're named Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Boris Johnson or even Alexis Tsirpas, as Greece so painfully realized) can do to roll it back. And, by their own accounts, they owe an intellectual debt to Ayn Rand. Most have not integrated her entire philosophy, and they compromised even on the parts they did pay attention to, but they still brought about unprecedented prosperity, and they did it by spreading capitalism and free trade.
×
×
  • Create New...