HOW CAN OBJECTIVISM BECOME A DOMINANT IDEOLOGY?

[rohintest]

MAPPING

FUTURE

OF

OBJECTIVISM

 

HOW CAN OBJECTIVISM BECOME A DOMINANT IDEOLOGY?

 

INTRODUCTION

The article is for long time Objectivists only. I think at this point only long time Objectivists can clearly visualize the logistics for making the ideology mainstream. Philosophy of Kant, Christianity, and Islam being examples of mainstream ideologies. Personally, I have been reading Ayn Rand and Objectivist literature for more than 20 years now.

 

BACKGROUND

Ayn Rand in her title essay of the book For the New Intellectual explained how philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, & Kant came to dominate the Western Civilization. Further, this article by a long time Objectivist highlights the spread of ideas in a structural way.

Basically, there are primary philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Kant, & Rand. Secondary philosophers like Plotinus, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, & Murray Rothbard (Libertarianism). Tertiary philosophers and intellectuals like Dr. Peikoff, intellectual activists, social reformers, political activists and so on…

 

GENERAL TRAJECTORY OF IDEAS

The Philosophical movement starts with primary philosophers who develop unique Metaphysics & Epistemology, and then derive Ethics, Politics, & Aesthetics from it. Sometimes like Kierkegaard or Murray Rothbard, some aspects of primary philosophy are picked, and secondary philosophy is developed. Tertiary philosophers structure diverse sources of primary or secondary philosophers into a single volume. Intellectuals and philosophers of science make certain implicit ideas explicit, and deep dive into specific subjects like Psychology, Economics, Education, and Sociology. Intellectual Activists and Broadcasters further disseminate ideas until these ideas reach to the man in street.

Examples include Dr. Peikoff as tertiary philosopher, John Rawls the father of DEI as intellectual, Dr. Tara Smith as Objectivist intellectual, and Dr. Yaron Brook as Intellectual Activist and Broadcaster.

Overall, here are the various stages in dissemination of ideas:

1.   Philosophical Stage: Philosophy is created by primary or secondary philosophers, and then structured by tertiary philosophers. Sociologically, whole stage can be classified as Philosophical Movement.

2.   Intellectual Stage: The structured philosophy is applied to sciences as in Induction in Physics by David Harriman, and Biological basis for Teleological Concepts by Dr. Harry Binswanger. Further, the Philosophy is also applied to subjects of Humanities like Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System by Dr. Tara Smith applying Objectivist ideas, or The Interpretation of Dreams by Freud applying Kantian ideas. Sociologically this stage can be classified as Intellectual Movement.

3.   Social Stage: Once Intellectual Stage is fairly established, the philosophical ideas need to move from Ivory Tower to the society at large. Examples include Egalitarianism of John Rawls moving into the policy of Affirmative Action, Libertarianism into Tea Party Movement, or ideas of John Locke adopted by Benjamin Franklin and applied for interpreting day to day news headlines. The sociological form of this stage being Social Movement.

During Medieval Ages sermons in Church to regular folks being example of Christian philosophy acting in social realm.

4.   Political Stage: After social movement, the next stage is Political Movement. Examples include American Revolution, conversion of Roman Emperors to Christianity and so on. Basically, considering high stakes in political decisions, social movement acts as an experimental ground for politics. That is, even though Philosophical Movement defines political principles, applying them at a state, national, or international level still requires creation of sufficient social ground. 

5.   Reinforcement Stage: While philosophical ideas like Objectivism travel through different stages in movement, the application of ideas is not always linear. That is, if the movement has reached social stage for example, it will still face intellectual and sometimes philosophical resistance. For e.g. Kant and his intellectual successors lead to the downfall of Enlightenment ideas, because the Enlightenment ideas were not sufficiently grounded despite reaching mainstream political stage.

Therefore, even after philosophy establishes political stage, movements in other stages also need to remain active. Conversely, if ideology is in lower stage, it may still have a higher stage version also. For example, social and political awareness of Ayn Rand’s fiction can act as a recruitment tool for the New Intellectuals.

 

CURRENT STATE OF OBJECTIVISM

Primary & Tertiary Stage: Ayn Rand wrote on all domains of philosophy in Galt’s Speech, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal, and The Romantic Manifesto. Dr. Peikoff acted as tertiary philosopher to consolidate her ideas in Objectivism: Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Intellectual Stage: There has also been application in basic sciences through Induction in Physics by David Harriman, and Biological basis of Teleological Concepts by Dr. Harry Binswanger. In humanities we have legal application by Dr. Tara Smith. Dr. Peikoff has himself applied Objectivism to sociology in The DIM Hypothesis.

Current level: I think currently Objectivism needs to focus on Intellectual stage. However, given how deeply entrenched Kantian and Platonic ideas are in intellectual ecosystem, we need reinforcement of philosophical ideas as well. I think the reinforcement stage is working well through Dr. Brook, Don Watkins, Alex Epstein, Dr. Tara Smith, Dr. Peter Schwartz, Ayn Rand Institute,  and some more individuals & organizations.

However, it is difficult for non-intellectuals to consistently apply Objectivism, because many subjects like Economics[1], Psychology, and Management[3] have not been sufficiently investigated from the Objectivist perspective.

 

EXCEPTION TO THE LOGICAL FLOW OF PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS

Here are some examples where logical flow of philosophical ideas is not beneficial to the spreading of ideology. For irrational ideologies like Islam, it makes sense to go to political stage without spending too much time in Philosophical, Intellectual, or Social stage. Significant discussion risks premature exposure of irrational roots. Therefore, these ideologies focus on reinforcement stage, where social, intellectual, and philosophical enhancements can be done in a controlled environment. Environment in which heretic ideas can be suppressed through political force like the Blasphemy laws.

Ideas like Aristotelian philosophy and Objectivism however need to follow the logical progression of movements.

 

CONCLUSION

The importance of ideas in culture & also day to day activities have been clearly demonstrated by movements from Aristotle, Plato, & Kant in past 2000 years. Objectivism offers unparalleled growth for self and humanity. However, to reach the Atlantis, law of identity needs to be applied in social realm. That is, logical progression of movements needs to be followed.

 

POST SCRIPT

If Objectivism is in Intellectual stage, how can non-intellectuals apply it in their day-to-day lives?

First of all, it needs to be acknowledged that there will be more mistakes, as intellectual foundation is not sufficiently built. One should be prepared to recover and learn from such mistakes.

Secondly, the deviation from mainstream opinion will be severely punished, as other movements like Communism have wider impact.

Thirdly, significant effort is needed by Objectivist individuals to understand ideology of persons & institutions one is dealing with. And sometimes tactical or even strategic retreat is needed to safeguard one’s livelihood in a hostile environment. For example, discussing one’s Objectivist opinions with trusted individuals rather than in public or even private forums.

 

REFERENCES

Lesser known applications of Objectivism

[1] Objective Economics: How Ayn Rand's Philosophy Changes Everything about Economics

Amazon.com: Objective Economics: How Ayn Rand's Philosophy Changes Everything about Economics eBook : Buechner, M. Northrup: Kindle Store

 

[2] Reinventing Management: Organizational Ethics From Objectivism

Reinventing Management: Organizational Ethics From Objectivism - Kindle edition by Gupta, Rohin. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

 

[Boydstun]

"John Rawls the father of DEI as intellectual"

John Rawls and Fair Equality of Opportunity 

"The Interpretation of Dreams by Freud applying Kantian ideas"

Kant and Freud

Edited Thursday at 12:56 PM by Boydstun

[Boydstun]

"Dr. Peikoff acted as tertiary philosopher to consolidate her ideas in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand."

Rohin, I know it is customary and the official line that Peikoff merely consolidated Rand's ideas in this book stating her philosophy. I for one do not buy it. Peikoff was a significant source of many of the ideas in Rand's philosophy (always conferenced with Rand for concurrence) as set out in his 1976 lecture series "The Philosophy of Objectivism" and in his OPAR. And the same was the case for N. Branden in stating the philosophy in his lecture series "The Basic Principles of Objectivism", which has a more psychological emphasis than the statements of the philosophy by Peikoff. OPAR is the primary systematic statement of the philosophy, and I expect it to retain that standing. Blackwell's Companion to Ayn Rand is an example, I imagine, of pure consolidation of that philosophy (leaving aside a few departures from Rand put forth as Rand in that tome).

[Boydstun]

Rohin,

My guess would be that Objectivism will become more mainstream only by borrowed pieces. Portions of Galt's Speech read by Sen. Cruz in a filibuster a few years back is an epitome. Individualism, self-sufficiency, and independence of mind are heritage in America, and that cluster can continue to be revived as a live ideal by its boost from Rand. However, the pervasive allegiances in America to (i) heart-over-mind and (ii) self-sacrifice for others or country as handy and highest moral ideal show no sign of weakening. I'd expect those, as well as appeal to them as justification for expanding government programs, to continue. On the personal-life side, I'd guess that religion, perhaps watered down, will continue in the main. But alongside that, inconsistent as it may be, individuals will continue benefitting from Rand's picture of the goodness of loving oneself and some keys from Rand on how to make that love doable.

Overall, then, I do not expect Objectivism-for-real to become more mainstream. That it will continue benefitting minds and lives—that much—beyond mine is pleasing. If I were a praying man, I'd pray for just that much.

Edited Thursday at 02:25 PM by Boydstun

[rohintest]

REFERENCE TO SOME MORE DISCUSSIONS ON THE SUBJECT

• REDDIT

SAMPLE

Quote

As I explain in the article, currently only Philosophical stage is well established. In order to establish at Intellectual level, books need to be written which apply the Philosophy to subjects of humanities like Psychology, Education, Economics, Management, etc. Further, we need commentaries on these subjects based on the books.

Social Movement besides PR will involve introducing books from Intellectual and Philosophical stage in Universities, Schools, and also public forums like Corporate and Political presentations etc.

• FACEBOOK

Objectivist Friends Group Australia | Please check my article titled - "***HOW CAN OBJECTIVISM BECOME A DOMINANT IDEOLOGY | Facebook

SAMPLES

Quote

For Objectivism, I would say Philosophical stage started with publication of Atlas Shrugged, and ended with OPAR and Art of Thinking lectures around 1993. Given the 2 generations approximation, Intellectual Phase can be extended up to 2043.

 

Quote

Have been thinking more on the subject in past 1 week. Here are some additional thoughts. Quality and speed for Philosophical phase was much better in Objectivism, because Ayn Rand I think was a bigger Genius than prior philosophers, had ironed out the wrinkles while applying it in fiction, and deeply trained Dr. Peikoff.

As alternate example, even partial development of Kant's ideology by Kirkgaard was after 50 years, and systemization after 100 years.

The quality and speed will be much harder in Intellectual phase of Objectivism, and we should be open to lesser perfectionism than we have come to expect in Philosophical phase. We should be open to more commentary and revisions.

Of course, open advocacy of Altruism and corresponding applications like Communism and Islam still cannot be tolerated.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by rohintest

[rohintest]

On 5/16/2024 at 6:43 PM, Boydstun said:

"Dr. Peikoff acted as tertiary philosopher to consolidate her ideas in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand."

Rohin, I know it is customary and the official line that Peikoff merely consolidated Rand's ideas in this book stating her philosophy. I for one do not buy it. Peikoff was a significant source of many of the ideas in Rand's philosophy (always conferenced with Rand for concurrence) as set out in his 1976 lecture series "The Philosophy of Objectivism" and in his OPAR. And the same was the case for N. Branden in stating the philosophy in his lecture series "The Basic Principles of Objectivism", which has a more psychological emphasis than the statements of the philosophy by Peikoff. OPAR is the primary systematic statement of the philosophy, and I expect it to retain that standing. Blackwell's Companion to Ayn Rand is an example, I imagine, of pure consolidation of that philosophy (leaving aside a few departures from Rand put forth as Rand in that tome).

As mentioned in this article, the criteria for philosopher being primary is not completeness or originality of specific philosophical ideas (though Rand's work I think was close to complete). Instead, the philosopher should be original in answering key questions in Metaphysics, Epistemology, and optionally Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. 

Original ideas of Dr. Peikoff like solving problem of induction will make him prominent Objectivist Intellectual besides Tertiary Philosopher, instead of Primary philosopher. Similar to Mohammad denouncing Idolatry makes him Platonic intellectual, even though Plato himself never advocated the denunciation. Reason for Mohammad being Platonic Intellectual and Intellectual Activist is that he brought implication of Plato's metaphysics to Aesthetics comprehensively. Blasphemy being application of Platonic Politics of Authoritarian Philosopher King.

[rohintest]

On 5/16/2024 at 7:37 PM, Boydstun said:

Rohin,

My guess would be that Objectivism will become more mainstream only by borrowed pieces. Portions of Galt's Speech read by Sen. Cruz in a filibuster a few years back is an epitome. Individualism, self-sufficiency, and independence of mind are heritage in America, and that cluster can continue to be revived as a live ideal by its boost from Rand. However, the pervasive allegiances in America to (i) heart-over-mind and (ii) self-sacrifice for others or country as handy and highest moral ideal show no sign of weakening. I'd expect those, as well as appeal to them as justification for expanding government programs, to continue. On the personal-life side, I'd guess that religion, perhaps watered down, will continue in the main. But alongside that, inconsistent as it may be, individuals will continue benefitting from Rand's picture of the goodness of loving oneself and some keys from Rand on how to make that love doable.

Overall, then, I do not expect Objectivism-for-real to become more mainstream. That it will continue benefitting minds and lives—that much—beyond mine is pleasing. If I were a praying man, I'd pray for just that much.

I think criteria for Philosophy being mainstream is NOT Politician Quoting it. Instead, it should be considered mainstream when its Politics is comprehensively applied in culture. For e.g. even though Aristotle was quoted a lot in Renaissance, he did not really become mainstream until American Revolution discovered and applied Political implication of his Metaphysics and Epistemology.

[Boydstun]

6 hours ago, rohintest said:

As mentioned in this article, the criteria for philosopher being primary is not completeness or originality of specific philosophical ideas (though Rand's work I think was close to complete). Instead, the philosopher should be original in answering key questions in Metaphysics, Epistemology, and optionally Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. 

Original ideas of Dr. Peikoff like solving problem of induction will make him prominent Objectivist Intellectual besides Tertiary Philosopher, instead of Primary philosopher. . . .

The significant ideas Peikoff planted in Rand were in metaphysics and epistemology. They are disguised as simply Rand. When one reads Rand in her ITOE speaking of such things as logical empiricism and the synthetic-analytic dichotomy, that is surely input from recent Ph.D. Peikoff. She had her ITOE immediately followed in her journal The Objectivist by Peikoff's article "The Synthetic-Analytic Dichotomy." That was his most important original contribution to Objectivism that was out in the open. Rand mentioned that when she had written in GS the portion in which she said she was completing Aristotle (identity and identification), she did not know the full significance of what she had contributed in the history of philosophy. She had learned that significance only later from an associate, she said. Bet a coke it was Peikoff. Ditto for the book on Pragmatism from which she quotes in setting out the problem of universals in the intro to ITOE. When you read the appendix added to ITOE, transcriptions of her epistemology seminar, it is clear there are two "Professors" (B and E) who are on the intellectual dais with Rand (Gotthelf and Peikoff); she relied on them for understanding what others are getting at at times and for history of philosophy. All the while, from his time in grad school to the end of Rand's substantive output (her participation in Peikoff's 1976 lecture series "The Philosophy of Objectivism", Peikoff is raising issues in philosophy (theoretical philosophy, contemporary or classical) that Rand would otherwise know nothing of, and together they hammer out an Objectivist answer. Behind the mask of John Galt is Ayn Rand. Behind the mask of "Ayn Rand's Philosophy" is Ayn Rand and some helpers, most notably Leonard Peikoff.

My point is not that you are incorrect if you buy the standard line on authorship of the philosophy Objectivism. My only point is that that line is implausible. (Independently, Robert Campbell reached the same conclusion.) I don't mean to be vindicating a widely unacknowledged contribution of Peikoff to what is, in the end, an amateur philosophy that addressed a number of standard issues in philosophy; he'd surely not like that. I'm just being realistic about the actual complexity that has been brushed under the rug.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For original or fairly original, for true or approximately true, and for important in this philosophy, I take these.

Edited 2 hours ago by Boydstun

[Boydstun]

6 hours ago, rohintest said:

I think criteria for Philosophy being mainstream is NOT Politician Quoting it. Instead, it should be considered mainstream when its Politics is comprehensively applied in culture. For e.g. even though Aristotle was quoted a lot in Renaissance, he did not really become mainstream until American Revolution discovered and applied Political implication of his Metaphysics and Epistemology.

I was using the politician quoting merely as one public token. Another political token of the culture knowing something of Rand would be Obama's reference to "the virtue of selfishness" and his reliance on the public's widespread rejection of such a thing. A Sunday school teacher warding the students away from reading Rand would be a token of her becoming mainstream; I just don't have a public example of it.

Protestantism is mainstream without having a politics. There is nothing inherent in Objectivism to take institution of its political philosophy as a necessary condition for rating the philosophy mainstreamed. Philosophy need not be primarily a tool for political aspirations.

Aristotle was not championed by the founders of this country, I should say. 

Objectivism, by the way, is not going to have its Politics comprehensively applied in American culture. What is taken for just under the law changes here, but it is not going to land on Objectivist Politics, entirely coinciding. Not ever, while we are a democratic republic, and when we are not, we are no longer America. One can be successful and happy without the dream of perfect justice being taken for a real possibility. One might continue to march for it only by loving justice, all the same, I imagine.

Edited 1 hour ago by Boydstun

[necrovore]

Objectivism will eventually become dominant if two things hold:

• Free speech has to be maintained; otherwise Objectivism will be silenced.
• The government has to stop subsidizing false points of view so that Objectivism can compete on a level playing field. (Also the government has to do its job as far as not allowing people to initiate force in order to promote their viewpoints or suppress opposing viewpoints.)

The latter I think is the hard one. Ultimately it would require a separation of state and economics.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by necrovore