I think it was Peikoff (I could be wrong, I can’t remember) who answered once a question about using existing movements / organizations to promote Objectivism. His answer was that one should create one’s own media outlet / organization and not join existing movements.
So Ayn Rand was contradicting Dr. Peikoff when she appeared on The Phil Donahue show?
What about when she wrote letters to the editors of The New York Times or other newspapers?
Edit: JE beat me to it - Was Dr. Peikoff contradicting himself when he went on The O’Reilly Factor or The Savage Nation on radio?
I now have another bone to pick :- should a man of Yaron Brook’s stature be lending Beck any credibility by appearing on his shows ?
You seem to be able to realize Beck is wrong, even though Yaron Brook was on his show. So who are these morons who hold Brook in high esteem, but fail to distinguish between Objectivism and what Glen Beck is saying?
If they indeed exist, why should Yaron Brook change what shows he goes on, for their sake? If they don’t exist, then what credibility is Yaron Brook giving Beck by going on his show?
I think it was Peikoff (I could be wrong, I can’t remember) who answered once a question about using existing movements / organizations to promote Objectivism. His answer was that one should create one’s own media outlet / organization and not join existing movements.
Dr. Peikoff said one should create their own media outlet? How exactly am I gonna do that, should I just post on youtube, even if I have a chance to go on NBC and talk about Objectivism on the Leno show for 20 minutes?
Please, back that claim up with a quote that says anything about creating media outlets, or not going on TV Shows. Did Peikoff say that before or after he was on Bill O’Reilly?
Of some relevance to this discussion was a memorable essay on rights by Ayn Rand ( except I don’t quite(!) remember the book - it may be Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal ) in which she wrote that you have the right to say what you wish; but you don’t have the right to demand my platform on which to say it.
Thomas’ post on sanctions reminded me of this.
I am aware of the challenges and ramifications of wanting to find an organ and an outlet for one’s ‘message’. ( I did spend several years in journalism ).
The one-on-one format of these shows, Beck, Donahue, et al, might be an obviously effective vehicle for Objectivism — but I am still uncomfortable about something. I think it has to do with esteem and value : there is something demeaning, I feel, about a man of higher worth having to communicate with one of lesser worth - whatever the potential outcome in terms of publicity may be.
Is there no one else who detects an element of utilitarianism, and sacrifice, in this ?
I think there is a difference between a single interview and being a regular guest on a show.
And that difference would be…?
Of some relevance to this discussion was a memorable essay on rights by Ayn Rand ( except I don’t quite(!) remember the book - it may be Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal ) in which she wrote that you have the right to say what you wish; but you don’t have the right to demand my platform on which to say it.
That actually is of zero relevance to this discussion, unless Beck threatened to kick Yaron off the show and Yaron tried to claim that his freedom of speech was being violated by Beck…?
The one-on-one format of these shows, Beck, Donahue, et al, might be an obviously effective vehicle for Objectivism — but I am still uncomfortable about something. I think it has to do with esteem and value : there is something demeaning, I feel, about a man of higher worth having to communicate with one of lesser worth - whatever the potential outcome in terms of publicity may be.
Well what is it then? I have yet to be presented with an actual reason other than “There’s a difference…” --blankout, and “I feel it’s wrong, but…” --blankout.
I feel, about a man of higher worth having to communicate with one of lesser worth - whatever the potential outcome in terms of publicity may be.
What the hell does that even mean? It’s Glenn Beck’s show, not Yaron’s, so Genn obviously does have greater utility in terms of the fact that he has a popular televesion show through which to speak and Yaron wants to do the speaking.
Is there no one else who detects an element of utilitarianism, and sacrifice, in this ?
I find this issue very interesting, and it relates to why I put down my novel and will have to do a major re-write if I ever publish it. I have a guy on a ship saying Poseidon is with you / against you for a lot of passages. He is helpful to the hero, in that the Poseidon guy is the captain of a ship that the hero needs to do his work. But, after a while, and stepping back from the insides of the novel and conflicts, I more fully realized that he was being completely arbitrary, and even though the hero confronts him about it time after time, he doesn’t make any headway. And it did come down to the issue of dealing with religious people. Past a certain point, of that is all they have to say, then it’s not worth pursuing; because there is no rationality there. So, part of the question is this: Is there any rationality in Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and other like them; or are they just religious nuts? Many of you might say they are just religious nuts, but there is more rationality mixed in there despite from the religiosity. The religiosity aggravates me, because it is arbitrary. But it is not as if these people are some monk cast away in the desert and doesn’t know anything about what it means to be civilized and to have a rational conversation. They are mis-integrated, and need to become more integrated; that’s for sure. But are they blatantly irrational for the whole show? I don’t think so, and I do think Rush and Glenn are good news analysts. However, so long as the Conservatives stick with religion and to that extent, we certainly have to choose our allies well – specifically on ad hoc grounds.
Not one word about Objectivists. A lot of words about atheists. And frankly, 99% of the time, atheists have a lot of problems–they *do* lead empty lives or worship the government as he accuses them of doing. *Those* atheists I don’t have a problem with him condemning.
He is wrong to generalize to *all* atheists; he *knows* better because he knows Yaron Brook. And he is wrong to hold out religion as the solution.
I think it was Peikoff (I could be wrong, I can’t remember) who answered once a question about using existing movements / organizations to promote Objectivism.
Peikoff has said things about this subject, yes, and I agree that it’s a bad idea to try to use, say, the Libertarian Party as a front for pushing Objectivist goals because it wouldn’t work in the long run. Joining a *movement* or *organization* is a bad idea unless it’s an ad-hoc organization.
But how is Glenn Beck a *movement* or *organization*? He’s *one guy*. There’s nothing wrong with accepting invitations from individual pundits to discuss with them. It’d be wrong for Yaron Brook to appear at, say, a Republican caucus or a libertarian party meeting, but there’s nothing wrong with addressing Republicans or Libertarians. You just have to be aware of the program purpose of the specific function you’re attending. If you’re invited to speak on free market health care at a pro-life function, you should decline because you’d be granting the pro-life aspect of the function your sanction. You should probably also decline if some of the invited speakers intend to speak on being pro-life (assuming you know in advance). But if that’s not the topic or on the agenda even if you know some of the speakers ARE pro-life, speaking is fine.
So Beck is religious? Man, I would never have guessed that! That totally changes my opinion of him! </sarcasm>
I must say that I did find your post instructive, though: I learned that the extent and intensity of your hatred for Glenn Beck was greater than I ever would have imagined. To be sure, there are many things that I passionately hate myself; for example, I hate dogs, and I mean really hate them, especially when they bark, but somehow it’s never crossed my mind to go on a pets forum and say things like “Man’s best friend, THIS? Yeah, right!”
And I found that creepy footage of children singing hymns to Obama an eye-opener, too. So yes, thanks for the instructive post, but if your agenda is to persuade people to support the DNC, you have pretty much shot yourself in the foot as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t find it wrong that Yaron appears on Beck’s show. When Yaron is on, he is concise and to the point. He does not make compromises to Beck. He agrees with a point Beck has made, and explains why he agrees. I wouldn’t care if an Objectivist intellectual appeared on the Keith Olbermann show and even agreed with some point that windbag made. An appearance is not a sanction, and Yaron has disagreed with Beck plenty. However, after THIS display I would hope the ARI would be wary to send anyone to that show until Glenn either retracts or clarifies. It is no secret Glenn is a religious man, and even a non-mainstream religion (Mormonism). What was not 100% clear was his absolute hatred for atheism, categorically it seems. Not only is atheism the incorrect and immoral position, but it is the fountainhead (no pun intended) of America’s problems.
To Steve, who are these 99% of atheists you are generalizing about? Have you met them? I know atheists make up a very small portion of this society, and the world population, but it’s pretty unlikely you met them all. Most of the actual, intellectually active atheists I have known have been rather decent people. They were not hedonists or communists. They were good people, just like many religious people are in fact good people. The difference is, with atheists, from that single aspect about them, you can tell one thing: they don’t believe in any deity. With Christians, Muslims, Jews you can tell PLENTY of things, at least about their personal beliefs. So, to say 99% of atheists are condemnable seems like a statement that demands proof. I’ve noticed a lot of positive trends in the world of atheism, actually, however filled with mistakes and errors. Those mistakes and errors certainly do not rival the Conservatives.
About the creepy footage of children singing hymns about Obama. I agree, super creepy and totally immoral. Also, a religious activity I would say. Beck seems to be facing a contradiction. These children are being indoctrinated to worship a god-like figure. Beck should support them, should give those little bastards some structure.
Not one word about Objectivists. A lot of words about atheists. And frankly, 99% of the time, atheists have a lot of problems
What possible link could the absence of a belief in the magical sky father have to do with any problems? What if I replaced Objectivism with atheis in your sentece?
I guarantee you that 99% of Objectivists have problems, so someone railing against Objectivists must have a point, right?
If atheists have problems, they are in no way related to their atheism-their lack of belief in God. In fact, in a person with problems, his atheism is one thing that is positive. Without his atheism, he would be irrational in one more aspect of his life.
To attack someone for their atheism or any other aspect of a them that is good is the definitely a pure evil choice. The fact that he attributes irrational aspects of some poople’s belief systems to their lack of belief in God makes it more evil, not something that is redeeming.
That crazy Glenn Beck guy might be on to something. Here is a Gallup poll showing none/atheist/agnostic leads all religious groups in support of Obama.
So Glenn Beck is wrong. It is not all atheists that suck, just most of them.
I had the opportunity to be part of a conversation with the person who set up the Beck appearances for Yaron Brook. The point was that the Beck program is an opinion program on a news channel. It was understood that Beck would know that Yaron would speak his mind and represent Objectivism and ARI.
This is not the 700 Club, but a show on a major cable network. There is no reason to think that appearing on the show implies any endorsement of the positions of any other person who appears on that show, including the host. The only recognition that appearing on a show implies is that the guest expects that there will be viewers.
I expect that Yaron doesn’t actually care if Beck agrees with him or even likes him. Yaron just wants the opportunity to present his ideas. If he had several different options, Beck might not be the first choice, but I expect that the criteria would include the size of the audience, not their acceptance of him.
Just what show could he go today that isn’t dominated by crazy religious or crazy Obama people or maybe people too afraid to express their distain for both?
Glenn Beck is a libertarian! Who thinks gay marriage will explode the universe, justifies the War on Drugs, is xenophobic, and thinks that our nation is reaching a new nadir “because we’ve become a godless country”.
As one matures in wisdom, I think one discovers that the most important thing in choosing one’s associations or alliances is really their general sense of life rather than the specifics of each of their concrete ideas or beliefs. Do they approach the problems of life rationally? Do they have personal integrity? Do they value the magnificent achievements of science and architecture and (big) business, etc, in the free world? Are they passionate about life, and love? And so on. Their sense of life.
Anyone who would like Yaron Brook enough to want him on his show - and in his magazine, by the way - would count as sufficiently rational in my books to deserve a pretty positive judgment.
That’s a pretty convincing appeal, blackdiamond. Yes, religionists can be very rational right up to the point of the ultimate irrationality - altruism, faith, and supernaturalism.
Beck is a strong advocate of liberty, and this is the most immediate challenge facing the U.S., and the rest of us elsewhere. It looks as though he has a genuine desire to bring the morality of O’ism/Capitalism to bear on a ‘crusade’ against a common enemy.
There was (a few months back) an appeal on this forum from an influential Mormon who similarly professed to admire the bulk of Objectivism, and suggested basically that we bury our differences in the greater interest of your nation.
I was one of the few who entertained the idea, as an ‘arms-length’ alliance – temporarily, with clear cut separation between the two parties – simply because of the religious Capitalists’ sheer weight of numbers.
I had misgivings about the pragmatism involved, (‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’), but decided it was superseded by the huge threat we are facing.
So where was the support for this initiative at that time?
Still, after Mr Beck turned his T.V. studio into a pulpit, it must become questionable for Dr Brook to share it with him.
I had the opportunity to be part of a conversation with the person who set up the Beck appearances for Yaron Brook. The point was that the Beck program is an opinion program on a news channel. It was understood that Beck would know that Yaron would speak his mind and represent Objectivism and ARI.
This is not the 700 Club, but a show on a major cable network. There is no reason to think that appearing on the show implies any endorsement of the positions of any other person who appears on that show, including the host. The only recognition that appearing on a show implies is that the guest expects that there will be viewers.
I expect that Yaron doesn’t actually care if Beck agrees with him or even likes him. Yaron just wants the opportunity to present his ideas. If he had several different options, Beck might not be the first choice, but I expect that the criteria would include the size of the audience, not their acceptance of him.
Just what show could he go today that isn’t dominated by crazy religious or crazy Obama people or maybe people too afraid to express their distain for both?
All great points. I despise Glenn Beck with a passion, as well as the news media in general. Besides a few exceptions, I don’t watch Beck, and this also includes when Yaron attends the show. Yet, I understand the benefits of speakers using the show to put out their message.