Why is it so hard to explain O'ism to others?

[EC]

Because of the problems I'm having signing in I'll only be able to check in here every once in awhile. But here's my question anyway: Why is it so hard to explain, even to people close to you like family, why things like selfishness, and laissez-faire are very good things?

[EC]

I will partially answer my own question here. I am not a rich and fully respected man, yet. So in other words, I'm sure at times it seems like I'm talking out my ass when I say things like money is the root of all good, unions are what are destroying Michigan's economy, or walking through Wal-mart always cheers me up and puts a smile on my face because of how the company is run and its immense world-wide success.

Why doe's everyone believe the crap they see on T.V. or read in the newspaper that is completely the opposite of the common sense thinking I wrote about above? Why do most people accept non-sense as fact their whole lives?

Recently my Grandfather told me I must have "the devil in me" when I tried to explain to him why there is no need for a "God" or for the universe to have been "created" since it always has existed.

I always here from other people well "that's just your opinion, and I think different." How can I explain to people that it is not just my opinion that existence exists and doesn't need to be "created". Or that socializing medicine would destroy the medical field and the economy. Or that social security at it's root is evil, and needs to be eliminated not "fixed" and definitely NOT kept how it is.

This is the kind of stuff I run into nearly everyday, talking to nearly everybody. Sometimes people agree with part but not the rest, and sometimes they tell me that absolute knowledge about things is not possible without seeing or acknowledging the contradiction in that statement.

Why does it seem like most people ignore reality and what is right before their very eyes? Sometimes I don't even know if I can take this country anymore and then I realize there's no where else in the world to go. How can we make this country more tolerable and rational.

Sorry for the rant, I'm frusterated and as some people on this board would call it "negative" right now.

[Malkuth]

Are you having trouble explaining this to people who don't believe that laissez-faire capitalism and selfishness are good things to begin with? If that's so, part of the problem may be that they simply don't want to believe what you have to say is true. Or they could find what you have to say to be completely absurd; the word 'selfishness' has an extremely negative connotation attached to it and is usually associated with infringement of others' rights in order to satisfy one's own wants. Try to explain to them that you promote rational self-interest, which excludes any sort of infringements on others' rights. Also explain that a truly rationally self-interested person refrains from any such infringements on others' rights, because he wishes to help maintain an ordered society so that his own rights are respected. (That is, rationally selfish individuals mutually respect each others' rights so that their own tihys are respected. In a dog-eat-dog world without such a mutual respect, no-one's rights are safe, so it is in a person's best interest to engage in a mutual respect of others' rights.)

Another potential problem is that you don't have your thoughts on the subject organized, in which case you should try organizing them on paper. Perhaps try to write a few essays on why you support laissez-faire capitalism and selfishness.

[Scott_Connery]

I think the main reason is that very few people are able to rationally consider their philsophic premises.

Any explanation by any man will be unsuccessful in persuading a follower of such a mind-killing philosophy as Christianity.

[JMeganSnow]

The reason it's hard to explain these things is because it's their own consciousness that has to do the work of first, percieving reality, discovering reason and the methods of logic, and only THEN is there anything there that it's even possible to convince. Irrational people are, by definition, immune to reason.

You don't have to convince anyone in order to lead your own life. As long as you maintain your integrity and stand by your own moral convictions the irrational has no power over you.

[y_feldblum]

Do they care about ideas? Philosophy is for people who do.

[ds1973]

I feel your Pain rational one.

Stick to people under 28-30. They have not yet solidified their world-view. Don't try to sway the older crowd unless they show a spark of intelligent out-of-the-box thinking.

I get a kick out of being able to defend the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Right for a woman to have an Abortion from the same right-to-life premise. Remember to defend the RKBA around your anti-gun leftist relatives and the right to an abortion around your religious-right relatives. Makes for fun dinner discussions.

Demetrius

[Lemuel]

I found success in learning to express myself in concise sound-bytes, and using language that is accessible to someone who's not familiar with the terminology (and clear definitions) of Objectivism.

For example, you mentioned selfishness. While we understand it, others might confuse selfishness with envious greed. Use the term rational self-interest instead - it's a bit softer, and more adequately explains where you're coming from. Come up with an appropriate - but simple - example to explain what you mean. If you open a shop and give your merchandise away, how are you going to survive, pay your bills, put braces on your kids' teeth? It's in your self-interest to profit, yet be competitive with your prices.

When you get good at condensing these ideas into digestible examples, you can link them together, especially where heirarchical logical relationships can be made. Selfishness - rational self-interest - can be worked into lassez-faire capitalism easily given the right example. Again, keep it simple, and you'll "plant seeds". Get too complicated (like using the pharmeceutical industry as an example), and you open up the conversation to distractions and dead-ends.

Explaining your atheism will be tougher because it's such a visceral issue for Believers. Personally, I keep it to myself most of the time, since it does me little good to wear that on my sleeve. "Live and let die" might not be the most rational way to deal with others, but I deal with all types of people and try to create trust on what we have in common.

Another piece of advice - avoid extremes in introducing your ideas to people, unless you have the time to explain yourself thoroughly. Instead of saying that "socializing medicine will destroy the medical community" (which is true), state that goverment regulation is what drives the cost of medical care up, and it's less legislation that's needed, not more. If the person you're with asks for a better explanation, be prepared to give it, concisely. When the time is right, then you can take it to the "extreme", having laid a rational foundation.

Don't hard-sell Objectivism, but don't pretend that it's just your opinion and that theirs is equally as valid. Let them discover that they've been wrong - telling them so outright will likely result in pushing them away from the truth, not drawing them into it.

[Strangelove]

The answer is, because people don't see any problem with their understanding of the world.

I know I can talk, I have recently read Ayn Rand, and it has forced me to think about my life differently. Maybe I will never be able to fully call myself an Objectivist because there are some things that I will probably never agree entirely with her on, (then again, in time, maybe not) but I can say that slowly, but surely, the objectivist perspective has had an overall positive impact on my life.

People need time, people will not instantly understand the Objectivist paradigm because so many people have been able to adapt to living irrationaly by making "Safety nets" which they can fall in to stop them from confronting the fact that they are simply wrong. I personally believe its an evolutionary trait designed to try to stop our species from committing suicide.

[Styles2112]

I personally believe its an evolutionary trait designed to try to stop our species from committing suicide.

That's an interesting thought. I know I have a hard time explaining to my wife the Objectivist view. But, I'm, very much, in the same boat as you. I've been reading Rand for a while now, but I just got into the non-fiction books. Like you, despite some minor disagreements I have with it, it's had an overall positive influence in my life. It is, at times, very hard to explain. Essentially what you're telling people (who don't know it) is we believe the polar opposite of what you believe (and, of course, one only imagines the reaction that that brings).

Still, an interesting thought you had.

[Free Capitalist]

I find it interesting that everyone's responses focused on the people Rational One's talking to. In my experience, however, the better someone understands something, the easier it is to explain to yourself and to others.

[TomL]

One of the biggest mistakes is trying to explain it to people who don't care. It's one thing to explain something when honest questions are asked, but to evangelize about individualism is... well... silly.

My best advice: If they aren't honestly interested, don't bother. Wait for honest interest before expending energy on the explanation.

[Styles2112]

My best advice: If they aren't honestly interested, don't bother.  Wait for honest interest before expending energy on the explanation.

True. Of course, in my case, I just suck at explaining ANYTHING (including things I know well), so often I make the problem worse, rather than better.

[Hal]

No offence, but maybe you just arent very good at explaining things? Personally I find it quite difficult to discuss relatively complex ideas in real life because I'm not a very good speaker and am far more comfortable with written communication.

[Outlaw289]

Think its hard explaining it to adults? Try explaining Objectivism to a class of high school sophmores who are backed up by a Left wing Democrat teacher

I am familiar with most basic ideas of Objectivism, and I hope to read Anthem and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand so I can get a more concrete basis to explain my ideas to others.

Since Objectivism compromises so many different ideas, I have been called an extremist from every side of the political perspective, from a "jingoistic Repugnican" to a "immoral leftard".

Edited May 11, 2005 by Outlaw289

[RosszValaki]

There is an abundance of people that need to make sure you understand where they're coming from. When you try to point out a fallacy or introduce something that is in opposition to what they already know the first response is to say You don't understand what They are talking about.

It immediately puts you at odds with the person to which you are talking.

Try to find the common ground you both stand on first, expand on that. This at least makes it posable that they MIGHT hear you out when a philosophical divergent occurs. Otherwise you will be seen as an attacker and the first response will be to defined themselves.