Spreading Objectivism

[EC]

Split from topic here--JMeganSnow

That helps achieve the purpose of this forum, which is trade among Objectivists.

And also including, I think, presenting Objectivism to non-Objectivists, which is probably its more important function if one's intent is to help create a more rational society to live one's life in general.

[BurgessLau]

And also including, I think, presenting Objectivism to non-Objectivists, which is probably its more important function if one's intent is to help create a more rational society to live one's life in general.

The following is from the Forum Rules:

• Purpose

This website facilitates trade among Objectivists and students of Objectivism. The primary -- but not only -- form of trade will be information about Objectivism and discussion about its applications.

Agreement with Objectivism is not required for participation. Anyone interested in Ayn Rand’s philosophy may join. However, questions, discussion, and posting of new threads must not contradict the purpose of the forum.

Is there some other (additional) purpose stated elsewhere in OO.net that brought you to your conclusion about the value and purpose of this site?

I suspect we will need to discuss this more, to sort out the terminology and respective ideas named by the terms. However, in the meantime I would suggest that "presenting Objectivism to non-Objectivists," that is, individuals who have chosen another philosophy than Objectivism, is irrelevant to creating a more rational society. The way to create a more rational society is to intellectually arm those who want to create a more rational society. The non-Objectivists will get in our way, but they will never be a path to achieving Objectivist goals.

Perhaps, though, by "non-Objectivist" you mean someone who: (1) has not explicitly chosen a philosophy yet, but (2) is in agreement with everything (no matter how little) he has so far learned of Objectivism. Such a person would be a potential "convert" to Objectivism. However, a more accurate term than "non-Objectivist" for such a person would be "(novice) student of Objectivism."

By the way, the idea of presenting Objectivism to individuals who have other philosophies is what ARI is implementing -- superbly -- among its other, more important functions. There is no need to duplicate their effort here, especially given that many of the participants in OO.net are not even Objectivists.

Edited November 28, 2005 by BurgessLau

[EC]

Perhaps, though, by "non-Objectivist" you mean someone who: (1) has not explicitly chosen a philosophy yet, but (2) is in agreement with everything (no matter how little) he has so far learned of Objectivism. Such a person would be a potential "convert" to Objectivism. However, a more accurate term than "non-Objectivist" for such a person would be "(novice) student of Objectivism."

No I mean to use reason to counteract all the people that drop in here espousing loudly their wrong opinions. And hopefully by doing so planting a seed in these peoples minds' that eventually grows into them becoming more rational individuals.

These type of people usually don't think there own thought's, instead what they do is express every idea that pops in their mind out loud, or in this case in written form, with their unstated purpose being to poll everyone for the "right" answer. They usually don't realize they are doing this, I don't think. Whatever they see the majority of the other people accepting, they usually think by default that it must be correct.

This is what we are fighting. To them we are wrong because we hold a minority "opinion". They let others do their thinking and in general have no concept of forming their own opinion without others implicit help.

This is why, in general, those that talk the most have the least to communicate.

How do we fight it? By becoming the "majority opinion". It is the only way to shake people out of their mental apathy. How else does one attempt to reach the non-thinking except by beating him at his own idiotic game (and I am not implying our non-thinking, but tricking them into using their minds)?

By the way, the idea of presenting Objectivism to individuals who have other philosophies is what ARI is implementing -- superbly -- among its other, more important functions. There is no need to duplicate their effort here, especially given that many of the participants in OO.net are not even Objectivists.

By the way, what I attempted to explain above is exactly what ARI is NOT doing. There is nothing wrong with taking the high road and that is why ARI and others who just want to "present the philosophical case" have their place in this battle.

But sometimes there have to be people who are willing to really dig in and fight in the trenches. Meaning, that if one's goal is to create a rational society in one's own lifetime and NOT some indefinate "future" then one has to figure out how to win the battle in a much quicker and efficient manner. In other words, overwhealm the people who are NOT Objectivists with Objectivist ideas or (and this will work just as effectively in the short term with most people) create the illusion of an Objectivist majority. You do that and all the rest will follow.

Edited November 29, 2005 by EC

[BurgessLau]

No I mean to use reason to counteract all the people that drop in here espousing loudly their wrong opinions. And hopefully by doing so planting a seed in these peoples minds' that eventually grows into them becoming more rational individuals.

These type of people usually don't think there own thought's [...]

This is what we are fighting. To them we are wrong because we hold a minority "opinion". They let others do their thinking and in general have no concept of forming their own opinion without others implicit help.[...]

How do we fight it? By becoming the "majority opinion". It is the only way to shake people out of their mental apathy. How else does one attempt to reach the non-thinking except by beating him at his own idiotic game (and I am not implying our non-thinking, but tricking them into using their minds)?

[...] In other words, overwhealm the people who are NOT Objectivists with Objectivist ideas or (and this will work just as effectively in the short term with most people) create the illusion of an Objectivist majority. [...]

[bold added for emphasis.]

To make sure I understand your message, I need to ask if the following summary is correct:

Your solution to the problem of the many irrationalists in society -- individuals you believe are, in part, preventing Objectivists from creating a better world -- is to take the low road (in contrast to ARI's high road): overwhelm, trick, and delude them.

Is that a correct summary? If so, how is that a use of reason, as you stated in the first sentence?

Further, given that the essence of irrationality is evasion, how do you propose to plant a seed in the mind of an irrationalist (which is what a second-hander is)?

Edited November 29, 2005 by BurgessLau

[EC]

To overwhelm, trick, and delude them is only what it would seem at first what is being done. If most people only accept what is popular, then make Objectivism popular, or at least seem popular. Don't even entertain their opinions as within the scope of reality (they are not) and state your position as if it were a fact of reality (which it is).

High-road vs. low road is the wrong terminology. It should be top down vs. bottom up approach with the vs. being dropped in the latter because both are needed.

[softwareNerd]

I'd agree with Burgess that the current purpose of OO.net, as defined in the rules, does not include attempts to convert non-Objectivists. Indeed, the ones who wander by are usually dispatched with alacrity. Still, a forum of that type could exist without duplicating ARI's efforts.

What a forum can do is quite different from what the ARI can do. A forum is a more personalized and intense form of communicating. Of course it would be a waste trying to change a die-hard "irrationalist". However, many people are at a point where they'd say: "I like certain things Ayn Rand says, but ....". There are so many possible objections: "it's too impractical", "it's too extreme", "it's a belief like any other, and while I believe it, I won't say it is objective", "I think there is still a place for God in a little corner of my heart", ... etc.

Many such people are not irretrievable. I have personally convinced a few such people to see differently; I assume the same can be done via a forum. While the best way for such people to learn would be to read some of Ayn Rand's books, there are reasons that they do not; these are similar to the reason I do not read Kant. They are not really "philosophical" and aren't motivated to read a book about philosophy. They've accepted the idea that philosophy is not a science, but something "personal". They've accepted the idea that philosophy is not really practical, and might even be a waste. However, they have not accepted these by much rigorous thought, mostly just because they've never examined the issues closely enough.

I think it is plausible that a certain number of such people can be at least brought to a stage where they are intrigued enough about certain ideas that they would get an Ayn Rand book and read it.

I also agree with Burgess's objection about the use of trickery etc. That is not the way to change minds. Indeed I have rarely known a case where someone's mind was changed without showing an understanding of their position. This does not mean that one shows agreement, but that one shows understanding of the structure of their knowledge. Without this, the person is simply left feeling misunderstood or tricked: "I can't refute you, but I don't think you're right". Even people who hold opinions because the majority does, do not think of it that way. One needs to explore the reasons they hold in their mind. Sometimes these reasons are ill-formed and one has to actually help the opponent enunciate them: "do you think one must do this so that the poor may... or because the ..." etc.

Having said all that, I do not think the format of the forum -- as it stands today -- can achieve that end. Also, I do not know if there are enough people who want to play "Objectivist evangelist".

[EC]

You're misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I will revisit this thread as soon as I can put my full meaning in exact words. All I can say at the moment with confidence is that you are both taking what I am saying wrong. But, I will leave that alone for the moment because, I think, it is I who has not conveyed what I mean clearly enough yet.

[softwareNerd]

... you are both taking what I am saying wrong...

That's good to know, in the sense that it means we might be in agreement

Perhaps you could give an example of what you meant?

Edited November 30, 2005 by softwareNerd