Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Target Audiences

Rate this topic


Axiomatic

Recommended Posts

When inconsistency is a result of paying attention to history and economics, it is a good thing. It is evidence of a mind susceptible to appeals to reality. The hermetically sealed minds of socialists are not open to appeals to reality therefore arguing with the rationalizations of a socialist is every bit as useless as arguing theology with the pope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When inconsistency is a result of paying attention to history and economics, it is a good thing. It is evidence of a mind susceptible to appeals to reality. The hermetically sealed minds of socialists are not open to appeals to reality therefore arguing with the rationalizations of a socialist is every bit as useless as arguing theology with the pope.

Well, History and Economics are poisoned with Marxism pretty much everywhere these days. Nice one on the blanket psychoanalysing of all socialists by the way. Sure, they 'all' must have 'hermetically sealed minds'. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialists at least have some logical consistency. That qualifies them as better candidates for rational discourse than any republican or libertard. Many socialists can understand that A leads to B which leads to C.
I think this is a rationalistic way to approach the topic. Have you made this concrete to yourself? For instance, have you considered actual people from the left and right and compared them? And, when doing so, not used (say) a college professor versus an semi-entertainer like Beck? For instance, do you watch Keith Olbermann's show on MS-NBC? Yesterday, he was talking about the US becoming like Dicken's poorer London if health-care is not passed! Consider some other pairs:

  • Chomsky versus Buckley or Kristol
  • John Keynes versus Milton Friedman
  • Karl Marx versus Murray Rothbard
  • Barbra Streisand versus Charlston Heston

I just do not see your theory play out in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a rationalistic way to approach the topic. Have you made this concrete to yourself? For instance, have you considered actual people from the left and right and compared them? And, when doing so, not used (say) a college professor versus an semi-entertainer like Beck? For instance, do you watch Keith Olbermann's show on MS-NBC? Yesterday, he was talking about the US becoming like Dicken's poorer London if health-care is not passed! Consider some other pairs:

  • Chomsky versus Buckley or Kristol
  • John Keynes versus Milton Friedman
  • Karl Marx versus Murray Rothbard
  • Barbra Streisand versus Charlston Heston

I just do not see your theory play out in reality.

As I said earlier I am omitting the extremes because at that stage both sides of the coin are 'hermetically sealed' so to speak. Also, I do not accept your examples. To be fair and objective you should always be comparing like for like and that is a very difficult thing to do with specific individuals.

But it has to be said that in general the case of a young (18-25) Socialist vs the young Christian, there is usually no contest as to which is the most rational and able to grasp the fundamentals of logic. All that you generally have to do is strike at the ethics of altruism and work from that basis with the secular Socialist, but with the Christian conservative its a much more complex and difficult task to get through the layers of indoctrination, although in some cases you may even agree with them on some political grounds. But don't be fooled into thinking that they are any closer to your view after after a nice little chat about 'liberty' or 'economics'.

Edited by Axiomatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it has to be said that in general the case of a young (18-25) Socialist vs the young Christian, there is usually no contest as to which is the most rational and able to grasp the fundamentals of logic.
I disagree. Your experience is probably different from mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is blanket psychologizing to imply that -all- socialists are going to be more reasonable, or even to imply that more socialists than christians are more reasonable. It is also generalizing to say that all members of the republican party are religious, and to say that all members of the libertarian party are irrational.

There is a generous gulf between what politicians do and say, which affects the definition and ideology of their political movement, and what normal people think. The main mistake I see with the 'ignore the Right' argument is that it seems to completely ignore that: A. people are individuals and B. it ignores psychology. There is no evidence that it is easier to break apart the compartmentalized mix of christianity and somewhat free market ideals of a republican than it is to attack the dogmatic socialism of a Marxist leftist. This is ignoring the fact that a very small percent of leftists are actually dogmatic socialists at all. There are members of either party whom are only members because they despise the opposing party, a position which has no ideology at all behind it, only an anti ideology.

The left may have a logical connection between its morality and its politics, however it does not follow that this will make them any easier to convince or reason with. To say it does is to ignore psychology. There could be any number of reasons and circumstances under which a leftist might be completely irrationally opposed to Objectivist views and a rightist could agree to them.

The question of a "target audience" also ignores the purpose of making these ideas known. It is not for us to select who will agree with us, that is for each individual to decide after hearing or reading the ideas.

I would also like to reiterate my previous point that the goal of any ideological movement is to appeal to children, regardless of what political party their parents are in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it has to be said that in general the case of a young (18-25) Socialist vs the young Christian, there is usually no contest as to which is the most rational and able to grasp the fundamentals of logic. All that you generally have to do is strike at the ethics of altruism and work from that basis with the secular Socialist, but with the Christian conservative its a much more complex and difficult task to get through the layers of indoctrination, although in some cases you may even agree with them on some political grounds. But don't be fooled into thinking that they are any closer to your view after after a nice little chat about 'liberty' or 'economics'.

They're both pretty irrational in my book. The young socialist has a warped view of the world in which material values are metaphysically given rather than man made (therefore, to be "redistributed" based on "need" because need is the only systematic way of dividing such wealth). That's not rational, though it may be consistent. It's consistent to say, without fail, that war is peace and slavery is freedom, but that doesn't make it right, and especially not "intellectually honest" (for the simple reason that honesty demands at least application of logic to experience, as fully as possible, for each person...the only way it could be honest is with a painfully limited experience or with absurdly limited logical ability). The young (right-wing - many Christians are not -) Christian will agree on some political implications (free markets, for example) but for very different reasons. They still embrace the altruist collectivist ethics; free markets are just the best means to their end (maximized prosperity overall). Both have a somewhat "pragmatic" view on politics...just do "what works" (however defined).

And I agree, the target audience is whoever is worthy of the ideas, whoever is interested enough to learn, understand, and think about them, whoever uses them to either propagate them further or produce something practical as a result (I consider political influence practical, at least given the modern context).

Appealing to children presents something of a problem. It may have a tendency to produce people who don't actually think independently but simply spit back whatever has been put into their ears. Saying something does not necessarily mean either understanding or agreeing with it. And frankly, most children are not capable of fully understanding Objectivism. Let's also not forget that "appealing to children" would require circumventing parents' right to raise their children and indoctrinating them with ideas that others find objectionable. If it's not tolerable when they do it to your kids, it's not tolerable when you do it to theirs. Unless of course we're saying that "being right" gives a moral license to do anything we want, which is hardly the case.

I think the course ARI and other groups have been on is the appropriate one. Promote Objectivism in late high school and early college. People are often still in the discovery phase, they're receptive and impartial, intelligent and experienced enough to understand, but not so rigidly defined as most older folks. They're also far more independent, so exposing them to new ideas is harder to portray as "corrupting the young" or violating parental rights. Besides, universities are cultural centers, and they will be promoting some cultural/philosophical values whether we like what they promote or not. Might as well make it something we consider valuable.

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...