Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist Symbol?

Rate this topic


LiberTodd
 Share

Recommended Posts

I will have to agree with those who think that trying to come up with a symbol to represent Objectivism is an idle pursuit. However, if anyone wants to carry on with this idea, there are some aspects that should be firstly considered. In order to be functional, a symbol requires simplicity. It has to be easily readable and reproducible. The black and yellow image above has too many elements in it. Some of them are still incomprehensible to me, and nobody is going to stand in front of your symbol, staring at it and examining all of its little details. If you want it to be recognizable, the elements included have to be understandable at a quick glance. Otherwise, nobody is going to pay attention to it, and they will probably forget it a few minutes later. Take a look at some of the most well-known symbols, or famous logos from big brands. They all share simplicity. No one uses the Sistine Chapel ceiling as a symbol, when a red cross or a Nike Swoosh does the job. The last image is fine as it is. The other one looks like a ribbon awarded in a competition, or a text bubble from a comic book. Gradients are nice, but they are usually not advisable. Unless you want to invest all your money in full color impressions of a symbol with hundreds of inks, rather than just one or two, using gradients is probably not the best idea. The same applies to photographs. You must take into account its reproduction. There is no room for much detail or color when using certain physical formats, at least without suffering some type of distortion. The symbol should have a good size ratio, so that it can be still easily recognizable when it is reduced in size for smaller applications. I am curious about how far you are planning to take this, but the symbol has to be simple enough to fit in a pencil or in a golf ball. Also, you might like to add the word "Objectivism" to the illustration, so that people can start associating it with the symbol. The drawing by itself is not going to take you very far. You can drop the name when the symbol acquires enough recognition, but it is always necessary to include it at the beginning. Anyway, there is a lot more to take into consideration, but this should be enough for now.

so something similar to this?

Obj_3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preatorian Guards protected the Roman emperors after the republic was discarded. Purple was the color of royalty in Europe after Rome fell in emulation of the emperors. Purple is the color of Barney.

ahh very true, my mistake. your dislike of purple aside i still think it looks good, gold on black would also look good, although since you've already made the connection to the steelers (im sure there are a million other groups or teams that use black and gold) it is likely that people will confuse its affiliation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it odd to have a discussion about a "symbol" for Objectivism... but let's at least acknowledge that Miss Rand quite clearly indicated in AS that the symbol (branding, if you will) is the REAL dollar sign, i.e., the narrow U superimposed over an S (the monogram of the United States). Since that symbol is permanently tied to the idea of a gold-based currency ($1 = 1/20th of 1 oz of gold), I see no need to improve on the "symbol."

I agree with people who want things like "tokens", but warn that symbols can lose their meaning quickly if they become "cool" or "popular".

It is precisely because of the "baggage" of the dollar sign that I am fine with it. For those put off by it-- so be it since they have given into philosophical nonsense.

Thoughts?

I do not think it is a good idea to use the $ as a kind of symbol, it makes it too easy for opponents and idiots to caricature Objectivism as a pseudo-philosophy of pure materialist greed, devoid of any moral values. You are not furthering your own interests if you want to erect walls around Objectivism, making it harder for people to understand it. Time is precious, if people are immediately put off, thinking it is just a rationalisation of greed, they won't waste their time reading Rand's books or listen to you, they will switch off. That stops Objectivism spreading, allowing statism to continue unhindered by reason. Though perhaps I am overstating things just a tad.

also, I don't know about the "real" dollar, I thought the $ was in existence, prior to the formation of the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think it is a good idea to use the $ as a kind of symbol, it makes it too easy for opponents and idiots to caricature Objectivism as a pseudo-philosophy of pure materialist greed, devoid of any moral values.

Any simplification of Objectivism into a single symbol or a single concept is going to suffer from mischaracterization. That problem is not unique to the dollar sign. Images simply mean different things to different people.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think it is a good idea to use the $ as a kind of symbol, it makes it too easy for opponents and idiots to caricature Objectivism as a pseudo-philosophy of pure materialist greed, devoid of any moral values. You are not furthering your own interests if you want to erect walls around Objectivism, making it harder for people to understand it. Time is precious, if people are immediately put off, thinking it is just a rationalisation of greed, they won't waste their time reading Rand's books or listen to you, they will switch off. That stops Objectivism spreading, allowing statism to continue unhindered by reason. Though perhaps I am overstating things just a tad.

also, I don't know about the "real" dollar, I thought the $ was in existence, prior to the formation of the US?

I couldn't have agreed more, that's why I loved the idea of the phi symbol, it could encompass all of objectivism, but that's just me, of course there will be people that are gonna be against the idea of a symbol representing OBjectivism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think it is a good idea to use the $ as a kind of symbol, it makes it too easy for opponents and idiots to caricature Objectivism as a pseudo-philosophy of pure materialist greed, devoid of any moral values. You are not furthering your own interests if you want to erect walls around Objectivism, making it harder for people to understand it. Time is precious, if people are immediately put off, thinking it is just a rationalisation of greed, they won't waste their time reading Rand's books or listen to you, they will switch off. That stops Objectivism spreading, allowing statism to continue unhindered by reason. Though perhaps I am overstating things just a tad.

also, I don't know about the "real" dollar, I thought the $ was in existence, prior to the formation of the US?

I couldn't have agreed more, that's why I loved the idea of the phi symbol, it could encompass all of objectivism, but that's just me, of course there will be people that are gonna be against the idea of a symbol representing OBjectivism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any simplification of Objectivism into a single symbol or a single concept is going to suffer from mischaracterization. That problem is not unique to the dollar sign. Images simply mean different things to different people.

This is correct, but you know what? Screw 'em!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any simplification of Objectivism into a single symbol or a single concept is going to suffer from mischaracterization. That problem is not unique to the dollar sign. Images simply mean different things to different people.

As opposed to their mischaracterization and misrepresentation and blatant falsehoods about volumes of scholarly work written by Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, lectures by Brook, Ghate, advocacy by F.A.R.M, ARI, and countless others...

Mischaracterization... pfft.

Bring it! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

"The sign of the dollar is a symbol introduced by me in fiction to symbolize the cause of a particular group of men in my story. It would be improper to introduce a symbol for philosophy in real life, though it is quite appropriate in fiction. Philosophy does not deal in symbols and does not require them."

- Ayn Rand, The Letters of Ayn Rand, March 20, 1965 (p. 634)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The sign of the dollar is a symbol introduced by me in fiction to symbolize the cause of a particular group of men in my story. It would be improper to introduce a symbol for philosophy in real life, though it is quite appropriate in fiction. Philosophy does not deal in symbols and does not require them."

- Ayn Rand, The Letters of Ayn Rand, March 20, 1965 (p. 634)

Actually this I disagree with.. Letters and words are just symbols and philosophy deals entirely in words.. Symbols are just a way of representing an idea, just like a word.. Just like creating a name for the philosophy (which is a symbol) there is nothing wrong with creating a symbol that is non verbal to convey the exact same message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the phi because it has 'O' and 'I'. "O-ism"

Has someone made that point.

Anyway, I think an appropriate symbol would be the torch or Prometheus because it stands as much for knowable knowledge, as it does for industry, science, technology, progress and the like. Prometheus is also the mythological equivalent of Lucifer - which Judeo-christianity labels as Satan. So the anti-man, self-sacrificial philosophy of that worldview, and mysticism in general is opposing Prometheus - whom the Gods imprisoned. He's therefore like a John Galt. Plus, the spirituality associated with Prometheus is all about matter/spirit mind/body unity. That enlightenment is attained in the real universe, not by transcending it. Am I wrong so far?

Anyway, the torch is the tradition Promethean symbol. I don't know if other mythological traditions have symbols for their version of Lucifer/Prometheus. But how about a PHI with the bar being a torch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

kind of like that?

Man, I don't know about this torch thing. Once upon a time all Objectivist sympathizers were thrown out of the YAF at a convention were somebody burned their draft card and held it up just like in the logo.

Header-img.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I don't know about this torch thing. Once upon a time all Objectivist sympathizers were thrown out of the YAF at a convention were somebody burned their draft card and held it up just like in the logo.

Header-img.jpg

my logo looks nothing like that logo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...