Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The market place of ideas

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

If this was true, why hasn't the "market" accepted the Objectivist philosophy more so than it has, especially when it comes to government and economics? Can anything be gleaned from Objectivism's limited appeal worldwide, despite the overwhelming popularity of its main selling vehicle, Atlas Shrugged? Are market forces at work when it comes to good ideas/bad ideas? Why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is that Holmes was wrong. The test of truth is reality, not popularity. As to why Objectivism isn't more popular than it is, I will leave that to others who are better informed (i.e. at all) on the subject; I will simply note that Objectivism is radical, large in scope (i.e. a complete philosophy), and intellectually demanding, none of which comports with the demands of popularity given the present culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

If this was true, why hasn't the "market" accepted the Objectivist philosophy more so than it has, especially when it comes to government and economics? Can anything be gleaned from Objectivism's limited appeal worldwide, despite the overwhelming popularity of its main selling vehicle, Atlas Shrugged? Are market forces at work when it comes to good ideas/bad ideas? Why or why not?

I prefer the racetrack of ideas to the market-place of ideas. To find out which idea is the best (or which horse is the fastest) let the ideas compete with each other with regard to their coherence and their conformance to fact. The best idea will win, not because of popularity, but because of its quality.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”
Do you seriously believe that that is correct? Do you believe that 10 billion flies can't be wrong? You must, therefore, believe in god.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the racetrack of ideas to the market-place of ideas. To find out which idea is the best (or which horse is the fastest) let the ideas compete with each other with regard to their coherence and their conformance to fact. The best idea will win, not because of popularity, but because of its quality.

ruveyn

But it seems Objectivist ideas aren't even on the racetrack, not even in the race. There is virtually no integration of Objectivist ideals into the mainstream. Why has the marketplace of ideas failed in this regard?

Do you seriously believe that that is correct? Do you believe that 10 billion flies can't be wrong? You must, therefore, believe in god.

I am merely quoting Holmes, not saying it is correct. Obviously Communism took hold in the early parts of the 20th century and has been roundly repudiated.

Religion serves a purpose for the 90+ percent of humanity that subscribes to it. For one, it is a psychological crutch on which one can lean to explain events in one's life and the world that are beyond one's abilities to understand or cope with. It is difficult for most people to accept a finite end to one's existence or that of a loved one. Rational reasoning doesn't assuage this kind of psychological anxiety, at least not yet. Religion, despite all its drawbacks, provides hope and solace in this regard. So you can see why it has reigned in the "marketplace." Maybe most humans aren't psychologically evolved yet as a species to accept atheism?

I saw the Holmes quote and thought it would make for a thoughtful discussion. I must say I don't find your snarky remarks and smug, dismissive attitude towards ideas and individuals you disagree with to be constructive. Your contributions to this forum are unmatched, but many of your posts I have read have been filled with invective and vitriol. Since it is your assertion that persuasion is the best means for spreading the word about Objectivism, you are only doing your cause a disservice by casting yourself as a disgruntled curmudgeon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am merely quoting Holmes, not saying it is correct.
But there is no reason to quote Holmes, and no reason to make a claim which you know or should know to be false be the antecedent in a question of the type "If this was true, then why....". What I want to know is whether you have the intellectual ability to think about the things you post and to reason through your arguments and questions before you post. Or do you simply say anything that comes to mind, without first engaging your mind. Thoughtful discussion is only possible if you actually think, and I do not see the evidence that you thought beforehand. If you have an argument which is based in fact to the effect that the Holmes quote should be considered credible, and that it is a reasonable belief, then you can present the argument and we can weigh it. Otherwise, you're just making a thoughtless emotional appeal, and you are thoughtlessly dismissing reason by denying a fundamental tool of man's ability to know, namely his ability to evaluate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is no reason to quote Holmes, and no reason to make a claim which you know or should know to be false be the antecedent in a question of the type "If this was true, then why....". What I want to know is whether you have the intellectual ability to think about the things you post and to reason through your arguments and questions before you post. Or do you simply say anything that comes to mind, without first engaging your mind. Thoughtful discussion is only possible if you actually think, and I do not see the evidence that you thought beforehand. If you have an argument which is based in fact to the effect that the Holmes quote should be considered credible, and that it is a reasonable belief, then you can present the argument and we can weigh it. Otherwise, you're just making a thoughtless emotional appeal, and you are thoughtlessly dismissing reason by denying a fundamental tool of man's ability to know, namely his ability to evaluate.

Using the Holmes quote was a way to jump into the question of why Objectivism is not more influential and appears hardly anywhere in mainstream public discourse on government or economics, despite Atlas Shrugged having been published 50 years ago. Most people influenced by Rand I've met apply the philosophy to their personal lives, often in limited ways, and stop there. I'm sure many people new to Objectivism are wondering this very thing.

I am just wondering why this is so, and if the marketplace of ideas is a valid concept. I am not making an argument, that would be inappropriate in the "Questions about Objectivism" subforum. You mis characterized my post completely, then used it as a means of yet again spewing subtle insults. I did not make personal attacks after, for example, your moronic ramblings on the "uncontacted tribe" thread (okay, well now I did). I am sorry if confronting ideas you don't like disrupts your delicate psychological equilibrium, but I have to conclude you must be getting used to it.

Edited by Publius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a thread previously asking why people still believe in God. Of course, that is just about the first (Metaphysics) part, but there too, I think there are no really good answers: good in the sense that they make good rational sense to a rational person.

On the other hand, if one works through the details -- Natural Reality rather than God, Reason, Capitalism -- one does find that many of these have won out in the sphere of practice. The hurdle seems to be that people cannot abandon the theory, nor all the practice, of the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the Holmes quote was a way to jump into the question of why Objectivism is not more influential and appears hardly anywhere in mainstream public discourse on government or economics, despite Atlas Shrugged having been published 50 years ago.
It would have been more effective, then, to simply ask that question directly, without the intellectually dishonest implication that Objectivism is false because it isn't more widely believed (and that is the only reason for including the Holmes quote).
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...