Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
StrictlyLogical

Can Self-Insufficient Millennials become real Objectivists?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Particular individuals which are entitled and spoiled adults that have failed to launch and cannot or will not become financially or emotionally independent from their parents are for all intents and purposes adult children maintaining a relationship and mentality of significant dependence.

Do such persons necessarily have an implicit (subconscious) philosophy of dependence and socialist duty which prevents them from ever fully accepting or understanding independence and rational egoism that are at the heart of Objectivism?

Given how parents who have been spoiled and coddled can often spoil and coddle their own children .... are we forever doomed for the future (post-Millennial) generations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That  question fits like a glove, or perhaps the thought that got jotted down back on the 26th of February in a notebook kept for such occasions . . . (out with it all ready) . . .in response to the thought Galt put forth about "conspirators" being united by links of evasion . . .:

Can an aversion to evasion be culturally cultivated?

At one time logic was respected, and even sought to be adhered to, or so it was suggested in the motivational opening to Peikoff's Introduction to Logic course. Rand wrote of a sense of life she recollected from her childhood that has ebbed away over the course of her years (my description, not hers).

What does it take to turn morality into gold, such as folk want to discover it for themselves? (That was written by the sorcerer in Newton using the psychopomps to appeal to the Freudian alchemist in me.)

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We see evidence of dramatic changes, as in Socialists becoming Capitalists. (Yaron Brook, Walter Block). It depends on what they are exposed to and how they are exposed to it and at what age. The younger can and do change, but once one is older, the change is much less likely.

I think you are asking, without a revolution or forced brainwashing, how likely is it that the culture that this group is used to will evolve.

Without any art or clear literature demonstrating the dangers and the benefits of the opposite, there will be no change. There is an entire generation or more in Norway and the Oil Rich Arab countries that are cradled by the government and they enjoy it the way it is. It is only when the demand for oil disappears that they are likely change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an existence governed by the law of causality, what gets the socialist to become the capitalist. There is evidence that it can occur at youth as well as in "the advancing years".

Revolutions, like force brainwashing, are the antithesis of choice, and resentment is more likely to take root.

Art and its subdivision of literature are also consequences. As such, they are not primary, secondary, or even tertiary or beyond factors, except to the extent the consumer of such phenomenon digest it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A radical change in philosophy and behavior is possible, more so in young adults than old. So we aren't doomed, as long as good people stand up against evil. The real social problem isn't spoiled Millennials. It's tolerant, spineless capitalists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the answer depends on what you mean by "real Objectivists." Does living at home as an adult and being financially dependent on a parent automatically exempt someone from your definition? 

Speaking from my own experience, I'm a so-called Millennial who lives at home in a high cost-of-living area, and I consider myself an Objectivist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever see the series 7 up?   At 28 when they look back at their younger self's they wince.   My father was a communist when young but later saw the light.   Young people often realize how silly the ideas they hold when young, mostly just picked by a sort of cultural osmosis, really have no basis.

Thanks

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2020 at 10:00 AM, dream_weaver said:

Art and its subdivision of literature are also consequences. As such, they are not primary, secondary, or even tertiary or beyond factors, except to the extent the consumer of such phenomenon digest it properly.

Digesting it properly, can be aided i.e. making it more digestible. For illiterates, (reading) literature won't help but putting on a play or a movie or a verbal story is effective.

The subject matter has to be attractive, getting around the negative (or incompatible) cultural influence. When I mention that I admire Ayn Rand in the progressive town I live it, it brings up groans, disbelieve and fear. When I explain to them that they can get affordable healthcare if they take of the shackles of the medical system and give them examples like my eyes surgery that was $6000 but now is 1500, it gets through. So how it is communicated (digestibility) does make a difference.

Wasn't "We the living" made into a movie by the Italian Fascists as an attack on communism, and then they found out it was also an attack on Fascism? Art that is subtle in that way where the culture does not realise the anti-cultural message gets around many of the obstacles.

I also suspect there are more and more effective mediums for art depending on the technological period one lives in.

Edited by Easy Truth
added (reading)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the extent a work of art reveals the soul of the artist, the converse is also true. The purpose of art is not didactic. The groans, the disbelief, the fear reveals the reaction of what is revealed to and about them by a particular work of art, if it has even been actually held in contemplation by those expressing it.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

The purpose of art is not didactic.

True, but isn't it highly effective in teaching morality?

Also, to clarify something, the groaning I hear is about what the culture thinks Rand is about which nowadays means "anti-benevolence".

 I took a communist acquaintance to the first Atlas Shrugged Movie (first of three), she absolutely loved the movie. I was shocked.

Another incident is a progressive playwright who did not like Rand "politically speaking", said "I wish I could write like Rand". Clearly she enjoyed something, something seeped through.

And the last one I can remember, a progressive writer did defend Rand in a crowd where she was described as promoting narcissism. She said she read Atlas Shrugged and "she's not promoting narcissism, it's something else".

I would argue that art can be used as a teaching tool. Although as you say, it would not be an act of revealing the soul. Purely revealing the soul is probably more satisfying to the artist. But then didn't Rand want to destroy communism through her works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

True, but isn't it highly effective in teaching morality?

Sometimes.   I remember being forced to read 1984 at school.   When asked for my comment I said it was silly - you would have to  be nuts to let a world like that come about in the first place.   How silly I was - the thought police today with things like gender dysphoria, a psychiatric condition that needs treatment by professionals, as a guiding principle, are even worse.   I occasionally joust with them on twitter, and about the only reasoning method they know is the ad-homenem attack.   When I point out can't you be more creative and at least come up with a logical fallacy other than the most common one it mostly goes right over their heads. 

Thanks

Bill

Edited by William Hobba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

True, but isn't it highly effective in teaching morality?

 But then didn't Rand want to destroy communism through her works?

It shows the metaphysical values held by the artist, which in turn resonates with the metaphysical values held by the viewer. As to teaching morality, not so much.

Destroying communism via her works might be a fringe benefit in the long run, but she wanted to concretize her conception of a moral ideal, and part of doing so required a foil to give it vivid contrast.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...