Actually, concepts don’t subdivide; my process of thought subdivides to create new, lower-order concepts (which are structural constituents of the original).
But clearly we agree conceptually, if not on all the terms: concepts can be integrated with other concepts to form more embracing concepts, or subdivided into less embracing related concepts.
And, if people would understand the recursive nature of conceptuality, they would be more prone to accept Objectivism. It is often the search for a “single key”, the attempt to find an irreducible primary other than Existence on which to build; in effect, some want to only exercise the power of conception in the outward direction from a fundamental building block that cannot be scrutinized or subdivided. This is not the nature of the process, and is like trying to see with one eye: without the triangulation, you don’t see the depth (i.e., many seem to ignore/evade the “z-level” of conceptual reality in the “down-in-scale” direction).
This is what has been behind my thinking here.
But I’m focusing on the context of self-definition. I think people often do spend a great deal of focus on self-identification, but in this process they err in conflating themselves with some external, esoteric, other.
In other words: you exist because you exist. You are your own justification for being. You either will live, or get hit by a car randomly on the highway today. Anything you do to improve your chances of living a happy long life, which can be properly be considered very good, is because you decide that that is what you wish to purue.
Concepts as abstractions work because they are abstractions. Your concepts may happen to be reduceable to perceptual concretes, but as concepts their utility is that they can apply correctly to future situations about which you have no concrete points of reference. Math is a good example. 2 + 2 = 4. 2 what? 4 what? Well, more than likely the concept of 2 in your mind is represented by a vast store of perceptual examples. This doesn’t change the fact that if you encounter a new object (purple orange maybe), that 2 of them and 2 of them will still be 4. This is why a concept of self is important, for its implications concerning purpose.
Again, it’s fine to teach Objectivism, but most people are not intellectuals. They still need the product of philosophy. Thus they need good philosophers. But that doesn’t mean they cannot receive the product of good philosophy, benefit from it, and demand more of it, before the state of institutional philosophy itself is changed.
I would use the concept of God actually, and completely un-cynically. One could point out how God represents that bit of knowledge that is inaccesible. How destiny and so forth belong to him. Thus, though we may turn our hearts to God if we need hope about what is beyond us, our minds must be turned to Earth. A rigorous, but gentle, Deism would help America at least vastly. My reasoning is that those who don’t feel they need God won’t. But those who haven’t or can’t integrate the implications of reality psychoepistemologically may still need this concept. What they need though, is a proper understanding of why - if God did create the world - reason and objectivity are the necessary and moral means of living in it. Moreover, I think people would benefit from having a object for their psychoepistemological need for God that allows them to move on from the Bible.
In fact, I think there’s a compelling argument for turning the Christian parable into a spiritual argument in favor of Objectivism-like philosophy. For example: “turn the other cheek” can be interpreted as a spiritual metaphor meaning - leave divine justice to God - and instead focus on the objective justice demanded by the conditions of reality.
Well, I don’t intend to make this thread a discussion about God, but I thought an example would highlight the sort of ‘approach’ I’m advocating here. Not an intellectual’s approach, but rather one based on principles of Objectivism, translated honestly into the appropriate psychoepistemological tokens.
And I haven’t read the Fountainhead because I read Atlas Shrugged first. In meetings with fellow fans of Ayn Rand, I noticed that those who had only read Atlas Shrugged were much more open to Objectivism, and those who had only read the Fountainhead were much more cynical about it. I put off reading the book for that reason, and then have been busy doing all sorts of other things.
I suppose it’s good to have, as art, for ‘when I need it’.