Forty Year Decline of Objectivism: 1967-2007

--Forty Year Decline (or Stagnation) of Objectivism (1967-2007)--

The flagging of momentum, the loss of people, the loss of a systematic educational "pipeline" for Objectivism was caused by a series of unfortunate decisions taken by Objectivist leaders (and by their followers who imitated them) over the last forty years. It can also be seen by contrasting the stagnation or lack of growth of the movement to the growth of conservatism over the same period.

The movement really started with a small circle of people in Ayn Rand's living room around fifty years ago when Atlas was published and the idea of writing about and then teaching the philosophy came to life.

Forty years ago, Objectivism *the philosophy* (not merely casual readership of the novels) was growing rapidly under the aegis of the NBI courses and the Objectivist magazine, which together were training Objectivists by the tens of thousands. When a movement produces well-trained, confident, assertive, well-rounded intellectuals in their twenties, in another generation they will begin to have an impact. That is exactly what happened about twenty years later, in the 1980's with the Reagan Revolution and all its eager activists and with the Thatcher Revolution and with people like Martin Anderson (who helped destroy military conscription) and Alan Greenspan. A movement like that can have an influence on related movements such as on prominent conservatives, even if they are not total converts to Objectivism.

Fast forward forty years (from the late sixties) and there are no longer tens of thousands of Objectivists emerging from courses and training in the ideas as there were when NBI produced them nationwide and even overseas. And one 'proof' of the absence of thousands of these enthusiastic 'graduates' is the backsliding of the conservatives. Into religiosity, appeasement, big government, corruption, and religiosity. As witness the post-Reagan administrations, the two Bushes, father and son, and the post-Thatcher administrations in England.

The timing matches up (number of active and influential Objectivists & outside impact).

Here are the 'pratfalls' of the Objectivist movement from '67 on:

1. '67-'68 Split into two warring camps. Demoralization. Closing of NBI.

2. Slow regaining thru the seventies of education for the half that remained with Peikoff's slowly developing one course after another. And the tape lessee system. But, far from increasing, the number of students was a *small fraction* of those from the previous era.

3. Shutting down of the tape lessee system and instead selling the course as taped lectures at *extremely high cost* to individual purchases one on one. A still greater drop in people being educated in the philosophy and related subjects and in applying the philosophy.

4. Resulting loss in understanding the ideas for the last twenty years (I witnessed a steady shrinkage on both coasts and in several states and at annual conferences -- how fewer people I would meet completely understand the system).

5. Slow regaining in the '80s of beginnings of some movement momentum. This was tiny compared to NBI...hundreds rather than thousands...but was facilitated by the Thomas Jefferson Institute and its summer conferences beginning in '83. By '89, thing were just starting to improve, and the feeling of there being an actual 'movement' could begin to be felt...and joint projects (like ARI, campus clubs, lecture tours) were getting off the ground.

6. '89 Split into two warring camps. Demoralization. Breaking away of David Kelley and his followers. ARI loses half its support and its momentum...which takes years to recover. The Jefferson School loses momentum and ultimately collapses. IOS starts very small. Some momentum but excruciatingly tiny--less than a thousand people, years later.

7. Neither faction or group has the good sense (or perhaps the manpower and intellectual resources) to restart the education and training program of the NBI or Peikoff courses eras.

8. Fast forward nearly twenty years to 2007: IOS->TOC->TAS has begun to shrink (it was never very large). ARI has been growing, but is still a fraction the size and impact of NBI from nearly forty years ago. The clearest evidence of that is the complaint by its executive director that there are not enough trained Objectivist intellectuals to fill a dozen or two opportunities for them to fill academic or activist slots. They have the good sense to have restarted education and training with the Objectivist Academic Center, but the many thousands of prospects who enter the essay contests or read the fiction in the schools are still producing only on the order of a hundred (or less) people a year, not all of whom will do anything....compared to the tens of thousands taking comparable courses under NBI.

9. At the same time, ARI has alienated itself from natural allies and converts among the classical liberals and conservatives by insulting them, and refusing to deal with them...or in the former case expelling people who even go to meetings of them or book signings to -even speak- to them. Even if it's to try to convert them. Movements only grow by having an influence on more diffuse but larger groups in other more 'lukewarm' or untrained movements...or in the sympathetic but uninformed groups which are the wider concentric circles around them. ARI loses in goodwill and openness to listening from these groups and individuals by this policy. TOC has tried to build bridges rather than alienate, but they have shrunk to a handful of people and are viewed as ineffectual (perhaps even by those potential allies?), so their impact is negligible. While ARI has been graduating a small number of the next generation of Objectivist intellectuals, skilled, confident, polished, knowledgeable, TOC has been graduating approximately zero. ARI has succeeded in planting a few Objectivist professors in academic philosophy departments but the number is ludicrously tiny...and their impact in terms of graduating classes full of Objectivists or gaining Objectivism respect in academic philosophy is still more a dream than a reality.

10. '07 Once there is any sign of momentum or growth in the movement, there will usually be an opportunity for differences to show in how to apply the ideas or in concrete issues or personalities. And those differences are always handled by purges, factions, schisms, and loss of momentum as disillusioned people in large percentages leave Objectivism or intellectual activism permanently. They crawl into a hole, lick their wounds, and pull the hole shut after them...or they write document or blogs opposing Objectivism and blaming it for ruining their lives. Hardly likely to cause the movement or the ideas to appear attractive to outsiders.

The more recent glimmerings of possible future factionalism and bloodletting have come with several bloggers or website owners who spend most of their time castigating the purity of anyone who doesn't completely understand and apply Objectivism correctly. The most recent example was castigating the purity of those who did not choose correctly on a concrete issue: which of the two very flawed political parties in the U.S. is worse and will do most harm.

Conclusion: Objectivists have been better at quarreling among themselves, arguing over second-order issues, than in investing always rare time in learning the ideas, applying them, and changing the world.

It is always possible for that to change. But first one has to admit error. And...like an alcoholic who refuses to believe he has any problems and blames everything including his failure and problems on the rest of the world...or, worse, proclaims he is totally successful and has no problems... if one does not admit there are problems and that one is so far unsuccessful, one does not have the reason or the will to take a hard look at correcting the problems.

The Objectivist movement has enormous potential. A genius founder, brilliant writer, inspiring ideas. And most important - the truth, the philosophy of the future.

But even the best of ideas cannot succeed if they are not spread properly. Or if the people who want to spread and apply them serve as poor or repulsive role models. Or don't understand a difficult and tricky system of ideas. Or if they are unwilling to work together and build a community that is appealing and provides a first customer base and source of energy, troops, activists, customers, new ideas, new thinkers.

,,,,,

NOTE: The contributor-supported non-profits have an interest in 'hyping' their own work in glossy newsletters. But the proof of stagnation in the growth of the movement or its impact on non-Objectivists comes from comparing those breathless claims of progress or major projects with the lack of any real breakthroughs when one reads the same reports from five or ten or fifteen years ago.

What is needed is to correct the past mistakes before future or present projects will have any but the tiniest impact on converting people to Objectivism. Or even finding it interesting. Or even being aware of its nature. Or its existence.

NOTE2: The increase in readership of the novels is not identical to an increase in the number of Objectivists emerging after having read the novels.

Post 1

Sunday, June 3, 2007 - 10:35am

I totally agree, it's one of the issues that I've seen as a problem. I find more often I'm debating fellow Objectivists than non-Objectivists. I like a good debate, especially over the complex issues, but some do take it to heart more so than others. I wish folks would grasp that debates are not to be taken personal, nor should they be allowed to get personal. The debates will aide both sides in grasping ideas they're debating about, and if its left to be non-personal, it shows others who are not Objectivists, that this is not some sort of pseudo-philosophical movement.

Although, I think the problem is that individualistic leanings of Objectivism also bring out the "inner jerk" in some, even myself, from time to time. I don't think this is a bad thing, but I think tempered with reason and compassion, it can be better utilized and not to our respective harms (such as alienating non-Objectivists). Ultimately, I think the best way to show Objectivism as a valid philosophy is to start working on our ideas (like Theory of Mind, or my own theory of AI), and let them speak for us.

-- Brede

Post 2

Sunday, June 3, 2007 - 11:16am

Hi Phil,

This is a very important essay you wrote. In retrospect, I would catagorize myself as one of those supporters that have retreated into the hole and closed it off.

On another forum (not SOLO), many years ago, I wondered why objectivists never tried to seize the Libertarian Party for themselves. After all, many Libertarians already count themselves as Ayn Rand fans. This seems like the perfect venue for Objectivism to enforce it's will on American politics. But the responses I got were, to paraphrase, "Objectivism doesn't need to get involved in politics, what it needs is to educate," and "libertarians are nuts." The later response is inane, because you have to remember the Golden Rule of Meetings: the people that show up get to decide the agenda (Certainly, Objectivism had the numbers during the 60s and 70s to immediately become a political force had they decided to participate in the Libertarian Party). To the former response, yes, it does need to educate (and as you pointed out, it's not educating that well), but why not do both? The enemies of reason certainly do both, but should Objectivism tie one hand behind it's back in this fight?

Then Peikoff has the gall to tell us to vote for Kerry and the Democrats. Peikoff has done nothing to foment a viable Objectivist political movement, yet we are expected to follow his "sanction of the victum" advice. I'm astonished.

Eddie

Post 3

Sunday, June 3, 2007 - 2:33pm

Am glad you posted this in here - had seen it over in the Kiwi side, and wondered if it'd be better seen here, where think a few more of rational beings reside... in any case, a well-done article, and to the point in many spots...

Will, however, have to say that while agreeing with the educational needing, and have for many years, doubt will be able to get another NBI for two reasons - one, the group, if it had the resources, most likely to engage in such an endeavor, is TOC [or, as it now is, TAS, a name which all in all think was a huge mistake], which would then run into problems of 'infringement' from the second reason - that ARI would not, to the legal extent it could muster, allow any such competition from what to them is an inferior group, thus further keeping down the expansion.......

If, however, this turned not to be a problem, then the bootstrap method would work quite well in re-establishing an Objectivist Center School - in much the same way NBI was started - after all, they did not begin with much in funds either, mostly just a name recognition, the same name recognition which is available today......

However -

For myself, with my expertise in aesthetics, specifically as an artist with philosophical background, it would seem best that I would start my own "school" and instruct from that vantage point - the problem, tho, being, that there is a limit in the number which can be turned out..... yet again, like bootstrapping the School, so too with me, having the first 'graduates' being the new instructors and then running a DVD rental on instructions, in the same manner the old cassettes were.....

And, I suspect, this is much the same with a number of others here... why? because, like myself, our expertise lies in our expertise, not in academia sheepskins, thus dis-allowing being in any college form.....unfortunately.... this was little problem with NBI, but in terms of getting into these other 'prestigious' places, it would bear a looking....

If am way off the mark here, please inform - could use a more optimistic view...

Lest there be confusion here, the above mentioned school of mine would be an Aesthetic School, emphasis on Art, with a tie-in to the integrated view of Objectivism at large..... just as the others' would be specialty schools of the respective specialists, which [or so I would presume] would also have a tie-in to the philosophy at large...

(Edited by robert malcom on 6/03, 2:42pm)

Post 4

Sunday, June 3, 2007 - 4:55pm

The Fallacy of Sufficiency

Ayn Rand herself said that "there is no such thing as Objectivism," and to a certain extent, I fear that it is the belief of many so-called Objectivists in this effectively floating abstraction as a system sufficient unto itself which has been one of the major inhibiting factors in the spread of Ayn Rand's system and of her innovative concepts.

I do not wish to comment here on any specific personalities or individual schools. Anyone with more than a passing interest in Rand has his own knowledge and opinion on their various strengths and weaknesses. I do wish to comment on a fallacious notion that I see all to often embodied in those who call themselves Objectivists. This is the idea that Objectivism is a sufficient system.

I mean by what I shall call here the fallacy of sufficiency the idea that a familiarity with some or all of Ayn Rand's works, or even the greater Objectivist corpus, is a sufficient education in which to make one an authority in all matters of human knowledge, especially in the humanities, but also even in the physical sciences. For example, we get so-called Objectivists with little or no relevant knowledge of history, the Constitution, or international law and the conventions of war opining on the appropriateness of Bush's removing Saddam as if this were some matter to be settled upon 40 year old magazine articles alone, without reference to a huge body of knowledge; statecraft, the laws of war, what an armistice is, Saddam's and the US's treaty obligations, the President's oath of office, the Constitution's requirements upon and powers granted to the president, knowledge of the origins of Iraq, the Ba'athist party and its relations to Nazism, and so on, ad infinitum.

Not only do posters here who have other day-jobs feel entitled to say that the US should not have started a preemptive war in Iraq (when it didn't) we also get more well-known thinkers and even foundation and movement "leaders" inveighing against Bush's "altruist" motives and protesting that Iran is the real enemy. Well, of course, the president might have mixed premises, and of course Iran might be a good target for us to attack. But by making these arguments using Objectivist cant, without referring to the facts of the matter - such as that by the laws of war and the terms of our armistice we were already at war with Saddam - and by relying on "But Ayn Rand said!" arguments alone, (25 years now after her death) anything that could be said would seem either beside the fact at best, or cultish at worst.

While Martin Luther preached the priesthood of all men, and hence the doctrine of sola scriptura or "by scripture alone," the Jesuits teach that it is a sin to make authoritative statements in an area in which you are not grounded - be it theology or medicine or law. Objectivists are not Jesuits. But we would do well as individuals to refrain from making arguments on highly technical and complex matters, often well outside our own expertise, and especially on matters which fall well within the scope of legitimate and established bodies of knowledge, as if those bodies of knowledge don't exist or need not be addressed since Rand never commanded us to do so.

Some so-called Objectivists feel sufficiently grounded by their familiarity with her works to advocate for Gay marriage - without knowing what the concept of common-law marriage is, to argue about patent and copyright law, to argue about the innateness of sexual preference; to argue about the animal mind; or to argue for English spelling reform* - without, for example, a knowledge of previous attempts at such reforms; without knowledge of the origins of that spelling itself in the simultaneous adoption of the conventions of French, Latin, and Greek added on top of the underlying Germanic roots of our tongue; without a knowledge of all the various dialects of English - and the result that any spelling reform would have of enshrining one dialect's current phonology while making all other dialects that much farther from the approved standard. For instance, would we spell it Australia, or Oystrighleeya? Would My mom be "Migh mahm" or "Me moom" or "Mah mammy"? The examples are, of course, absurd. But the idea that Objectivism is sufficient to determine the proper answers, without a broad knowledge of English dialects from Ireland to Bombay to Tasmania to Kentucky, and without a knowledge of philology and comparative linguistics, is even more absurd.

I am not trying to insult anyone here who has engaged in debates on such topics, taking one side or the other, being more or less-well versed in these subjects as independent matters. I'm certainly not one to withhold my opinion on any subject - but I try to acknowledge where my expertise ends and my ignorance begins. But when I hear people who are supposedly "leaders" or voices of the "movement" expressing opinions on the Big Bang without any grounding in physics, or on the "unfortunate" but not "immoral" nature of homosexuality without knowing anything about biology or animal sexuality, or expressing opinions on the origins of Christianity (the single most written about subject of all time) without even a cursory familiarity with any of that thought, I find their claims questionable, if not laughable, and the grounds for their claims insufficient.

The extant body of human knowledge and research is largely valid, and is entirely beyond the scope of any one individual. If reasoned science, secular humanism, classical liberalism, and rational egoism are to become well-grounded and ultimately dominant and default positions of mankind, Objectivism, or at least the valid innovations of Ayn Rand and the beginnings of an outline of a full and broad philosophy will be necessary. But also necessary will be lawyers and statesmen who happen to know Objectivism, ecologists and historians and physicians who happen to know Objectivism, military strategists and diplomats and educators who happen to know Objectivism, astronomers and politicians and police who happen to know Objectivism, and linguists and movie directors and financiers who happen to know Objectivism. Rand's central Objectivist corpus alone is necessary, but not sufficient. Objectivist specialists need to apply Objectivism to their specialties and to make their analyses available to all. And Objectivists should judge these works on their individual worth and promote these works for their own independent value, not according to which faction has published them. Objectivism is neither complete, nor closed, nor sufficient, (nor the property of any one person) and so long as human knowledge expands, it never, by itself, will be.

Ted Keer

(*Let me point out that I am not referring here to Bill Dwyer's recent limited discussion of the word ain't. I have come across calls for spelling reforms and other such ideas as replacing his and him as the default 3rd person pronouns (as sexist) in other fora now long defunct. These reforms were promoted with the typical Objectivist zeal, but were terribly flawed in ways that it would be much to time consuming for me to address here.)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 6/03, 7:47pm)

Addendum: I wish to make it clear that the positions that I used as examples in my post should be taken as conclusions sometimes reached through faulty reasoning. However, they are not necessarily invalid positions in themselves. They simply need to be addressed both in light of Objectivist principles and the existing context, facts, laws, and so forth. For instance, regarding the Iraq War, I would consider it totally invalid to argue simply that the war is not in our interest, question closed. I would, however, accept as valid an argument saying that the war is against our interest and thus we should have repealed our armistice or negotiated a new treaty with Iraq.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 6/04, 8:43am)

edited for clarity and minimally expanded

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 6/04, 5:12pm)

Post 5

Sunday, June 3, 2007 - 10:31pm

So, there was the 10-year rise and the 40-year decline. In other words, it was a flash in the pan but the smoke has not yet cleared.

I think not.

Ayn Rand's books continue to sell on their own merit to people who never heard of Nathaniel Branden, Leonard Peikoff or David Kelley ... but who will, soon enough...

The multiplicity of channels is good. Different efforts reach different people at different times with different results.

The desire for one true source of Objectivism is symptomatic of the philosophy's appeal to true believers, classic authoritarian personalities who want to be told what to believe because they cannot live with ambiguity.

Ted Keer wrote: "I mean by what I shall call here the fallacy of sufficiency the idea that a familiarity with some or all of Ayn Rand's works, or even the greater Objectivist corpus, is a sufficient education in which to make one an authority in all matters of human knowledge, especially in the humanities, but also even in the physical sciences."

The sanction was from me, Ted. I disagreed with some of the tone, but was grateful for the facts within that reply. Ayn Rand pontificated on science. In her day, it was popular for high school science fair entrants to repeat a classic experiment in which flatworms were taught a maze, killed, and fed to other flatworms. Apparently, maze-running could be ingested. Rand condemned the experiment on moral grounds: cannibalism is immoral, therefore this is bad science. If the experiments fail on empirical grounds, then they do, but if not, then they do not. Yet, Objectivists -- readers of her magazines -- were expected to accept a rationalist condemnation of an empirical event. Of course, exposing the fallacy of the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy would allow that: if you do not have the facts, then condemn the theory.

If knowledge is complete, unified, non-contradictory, real, etc., i.e, objective, then, that is valid: you can criticize metaphysics on aesthetic grounds and politics on epistemological grounds and aesthetics on economic grounds and so on.

Again, there is a validity to this. It is true that reality is real, i.e, the universe is non-self-contradictory, but the basic rules of intellectual engagement require that each assertion be argued within the appropriate realm.

Objectivist true believers cannot accept that they do not know enough to pass judgement. They cannot live with ambiguity. So, they find some other grounds for accepting -- or rejecting; usually, rejecting -- an assertion that is outside their realm of knowledge. They cannot say: "That is an interesting question. I do not know the answer."

Post 6

Monday, June 4, 2007 - 5:22am

The June issue of The New Individualist carries a review of Jerry Kirkpatrick's book on advertising.

Starting a new blog�and especially since the paperback edition of my book defending advertising has just been published�I suppose I should begin with a post about advertising. So let me deal with a question that frequently arises: �What about subliminal advertising?,� to which I typically respond, �What about it? It doesn�t exist.
http://jkirkpatrick.net/2007/01/does-subliminal-advertising-exist.html

Not being a complete randroid, I had no idea that Jerry Kirkpatrick was kicked out of the Ayn Rand Institute.
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/kirk/index.html

That such a book was published and sold, says much about the state of "Objectivism" in the world today. Of course, Kirkpatrick has his ambiguous side. He wrote about the market functions of piracy, i.e, infringments on intellectual property. Personally, as someone who has made a lot of money from the sale of copyrighted material (my own works, that is), and as an Objectivist, I am sure that our laws on "intellectual property" and so-called "objectivist" ideas about "intellectual property" are not objective. Do I have a proven thesis? No. I can live with the ambiguity. You do not need to live with my uncertainty, but please accept the fact that I can. A true believer with an authoritarian personality who wants Monolithic Objectivism cannot stand ambiguity.

When Penn & Teller burn the American flag, Penn Jillette points out that totalitarian regimes cannot stand ambiguity. "They don't care what you believe," he says, "as long as everyone believes it at the same time." That describes those who wish for the good old days of 1964 when all Objectivists believed the same thing and truth came from a recognized authority. I took the Basic Principles class in 1966-1967 and I asked the host why all Objectivists speak with the same accent. His wife started to answer and he told her and me that we would discuss it later. Perhaps they did. We did not.

Maybe, before we give an intellectual blank check to someone with a range of the moment lifestyle and unstated philosophical premises, we should subject Angelina Jolie and Rob Lowe to a litmus test, such as Professor Peikoff's Study Guide.... or maybe not...

The success of Ayn Rand's ideas, their widespread acceptance, their permeation within and throughout our national -- and global -- culture is what it is on its own terms as an objective fact.

Post 7

Monday, June 4, 2007 - 9:58am

> the idea that a familiarity with some or all of Ayn Rand's works, or even the greater Objectivist corpus, is a sufficient education in which to make one an authority in all matters of human knowledge...

Ted, thanks for this great post! Also, very helpfully, you fleshed it out with lots of specific examples or cases of the error.

The rationalism involved in thinking you don't need to do the reading and can simply deduce positions on all kinds of complex matters has long disturbed me. It is a rare student of Objectivism that I meet who, if -almost any- topic comes up doesn't proclaim that he has the final answer with great certainty in areas he's never studied.

There are different aspects of this phenomenon - "the Objectivist Blowhard", the fallacy of sufficiency [your phrase], rationalism, smugness, arrogance and hubris. One contributing factor is a certain contempt for other books, other thinkers, "all historians are liberals or Christians, so I stopped reading them"...and the like. This last is Objectivist "Know-Nothingism". Students of Objectivism are sometimes highly intelligent hillbillies as far as having a deep, broad classical education or the extensive reading exposure of a Renaissance man.

(A high percentage are 'techno-geeks', not venturing much out of the sciences, technical fields, and the professions, and science fiction or pulp writing...into great literature, the social sciences, psychology, the humanities...all of which they are skeptical of or veiw, mistakenly, as corrupt throughout.)

This is an important part of the reason for the forty year decline of Objectivism. A philosophy that is intended to be applied across the humanities, the arts, literature, anthropology, foreign affairs, the law, physics, mathematics, history, sociology, psychology and psychotherapy, etc. cannot get off the ground if the people who study it and advocate it have not thoroughly studied the history of thought and discoveries, both theory and practice, both right and wrong, in these areas.

When these people then pontificate on these areas they are laughed at, they make mistakes, they get nowhere and can only post on discussion websites, they discredit the philosophy making it look like a redneck blowhard cult. And they harm themselves cognitively in the process.

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 6/04, 10:00am)

Post 8

Monday, June 4, 2007 - 2:43pm

     Phil, Ted, Michael (E.M):

     GREAT THREAD !

     So many aspects of ALL that I've read over all these years getting covered without acrimony rearing its (usually chronic) ugly head.

     Here's hoping that you can all keep it up...

LLAP
J:D

Post 9

Monday, June 4, 2007 - 7:17pm

> getting covered without acrimony rearing its (usually chronic) ugly head.

John, if you notice, in my original post I didn't try to lay blame on particular individuals ---> AR did x, NB did y, Peikoff, Kelley...etc. Just to give the overall trend without trying to exclusively pin the mistakes on any one person (or even group). I think that helps avoid acrimony because it avoids pushing people's hot buttons when they responded to me.

Of course, I am not always so wise or a person of enormous tact. I think I must have had a soothing Cabernet Sauvignon before posting... :-) I'm amazed that I've posted this on several boards and no one has insulted me yet for it on any of them. I must be losing my touch.

Post 10

Monday, June 4, 2007 - 7:57pm

Kept seeing, "Gread thread, Phil!" and could not for the life of me recall writing it...

Thanks anyway.

Seriously. The Other Phil (TOP): you left out the anarchy/limited government split, I think, which occurred roughly one year after the Rand/Branden split.

See my post on the actual history of why Rand rejected the anarchist side without ever seriously dealing with it.

So, the "movement" was split four ways: You could be a Randian anarchist, a Brandenian anarchist, a Randian statist, or a Brandenian statist.

A two way split is bad enough, especially when it involves what appeared to be irrationality on all sides, and left people on both sides seriously questioning their premises about just how workable this "objectivist" thing actually was, when the two top people have a total falling out.

However, the immediately following split, which occurred for the most part on moral issues - see Roy Child's famous open letter to Ayn Rand - but was "answered" by Rand, not with logic, but with scorn - further undercut the natural enthusiasm on all sides.

Prior to these two disasters, we thought we were on top of the world, an unstoppable force of reason and benevolent selfishness, building on all the best of Western history. Afterwards?

Great thread, Phil!

Post 11

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 12:53pm

Phil:
~ Yes, I 'noticed' your dearth of specific names...just as I notice otherwise in other fora. You're correct re this being a big factor in acrimonious spleen-venting trumping any (when there) rational arguments they're mixed with. Can one say such are 'Mixed Arguments' (you know, liked 'mixed economy')? And we know what mixing does 'twixt the worthwhile and the worthless.
~ Unfortunate that some seem to require a 'naming of names' (like, they can't tell if a shoe fits them unless it's s-p-e-l-l-e-d out for them) for a personality-flame-fest preference over a subject-debate. Rand never 'personalized' discussions; Piekoff hadn't. Why the need for such by acolytes I do not understand.

LLAP
J:D.

(Edited by John Dailey on 6/06, 1:47pm)

Post 12

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 1:58pm

Phil (Coates, that is):

     Come to think of it, I think I do understand.

     Some have a need for 'Cyber-Rage'; some have a need to scapegoat some (who disagree with them about whatever) others they've never met as some kind of a moral blackguard. There are never mis-interpretations or 'mistakes;' there's only knowledgeable evasion.

     That they DWELL on such (whether on Ayn Rand or the Brandens or a post from Judge Judy) shows what is most important for their posts: 'personalizing' disagreements.

LLAP
J:D

Post 13

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 8:20pm

Apparently, I stand alone.

I see Objectivism has having been very successful these past 50 years. Atlas is being made into a movie. Ayn Rand's books (and books about her) sell in the millions. When I was a college freshman in 1967, there was no Journal of Ayn Rand Studies as a formal group within the American Philosophical Association. Gold is legal, again, and has been these past 35 years. I just bought my wife and myself a couple of Taggart Transcontinental t-shirts via Cafe Press. You could not do that 40 years ago. I mean that 40 years ago in the YAF magazine New Guardian and other places, you could find Objectivist paraphrenalia, but today there is much, much more of it -- not less.

I hear music in the cacaphony of Objectivists arguing with each other -- because it is better than putting up with socialists arguing with Christians over whether or not the Jews should be allowed to persecute Muslim extremists before they blow themselves up in pizza parlors -- and ignoring all the stolen causal-effective concepts in that.

In the complaint that Objectivism has not swept the world, I perceive two complementary irrationalities. As Penn Jillette said it: Totalitarian regimes don't care what you believe as long as everyone believes it at the same time. Objectivists who want a world of Objectivists are totalitarians of low self-esteem who cannot stand ambiguity. Furthermore, Objectivist true believers deny objective reality by expecting other people to be different than such people truly are by nature. In other words, most people are genetic collectivists , except those of us who are not. That is why Richard Dawkins wants us to call ourselves "Brights." We are not like most people. But these world beating Objectivists want everyone else to be brights like us. They are not. They cannot be, anymore than a brick can be a tire.

And you don't have to hate them for it.

A good merchant does not argue religion with his client. I take what I can get by offering value for value to any who will take it and offer value for value in return. I don't care if they are Muslim or Atlas Society or libertarian or librarian or libertine -- but I will not sanction my own destruction. And that is another issue entirely. I assure you, as a criminal justice professional, that your potential for victimization begins with those closest to you. It has nothing to do with Wahabbis in Riyadh and everything to do with your spouse, your siblings, your neighbors.

(The collectivists within Objectivism are another problem, as well.)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/06, 8:31pm)

Post 14

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 8:46pm

Does anyone know what stage production of Atlas has reached? I like the fact that it is being made into a movie, but it has been being made into a movie for quite a few decades. My high school teacher gave me a newspaper clipping in 1986 that showed there was a remake of The Fountainhead in the works. Don't take my pessimism as wishful, I hope my skepticism is unjustified.

Ted

Post 15

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 9:07pm

Ted, they're expanding the script currently, because the executives green-lighted it into a trilogy. So expect a couple more years before it even hits production.

-- Brede

Post 16

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 9:11pm

Ted:

Don't quote me on this, but, I got an e-m from a cyber-friend who says that their uncle knows a former asst-writer who was privy to a gopher for B-P (you know: THAT 'B-P') that she heard from a quickly dropped vice-P (not sure why; maybe that 'vice' has something to do with it; I mean, not being the big 'P', ya know) of the movie that the present movie-makers (and, all concerned) are presently doing it (the movie, I mean) in Galt's Gulch. Not gossiping here; just letting you, ya know, know.

Only Rand F***in' knows when the f***in' movie's coming out.

LLAP
J:D

Post 17

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 9:37pm

greenlit

Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 10:53am

First of all, Phil, I know you have been in the movement for a long time. Can you tell us a little more about your own history?

I would also like some figures that indicate rise and fall. Seminar attendance numbers would say a lot.

I attended TOC's seminars back in 1995 and 1996. I went for one day in 2001. In 1995, there were about 115 people. In 1996, it was about 200. I think it was about 200 in 2001.

I also remember one very telling story from the 1996 seminar. Nathaniel Branden was a speaker there, and it was the first time he had been to an Objectivist event since 1968. A mutual friend told me Doctor Branden's reaction when he showed up. He told me that Branden said something like: "What happened to the women?"

I have even noticed this myself since I first attended TOC in 1995. The movement has become incresingly male, and this is not a posiitve trend at all.

First of all, the two best speakers I have seen at TOC were women. They were Carolyn Ray and Jennifer Baker (no relation). Both are long alienated from TOC (apparently). While the men often seemed to be just going through the motions with their talks, these ladies actually showed some enthusiasm for their talks.

In many respects, this is a criticism of many of the male speakers at TOC. Most of them showed little enthusiam. I saw a lot more enthusiasm from some of the excellent speakers I've seen at the Foundation for Economic Education.

TOC has also effectively marginalized itself from many libertarian organizations. This hurts TOC. After all, it was at the FEE seminar in July 1994 that I first learned about David Kelley. A speaker at the seminar was named Robert Bidinotto, and a grad student there was named Jay Friedenberg.

Of course, many libertarians have distanced themselves from Objectivism because the so-called leadership of the movement has jumped on the neo-con ship and supported the most corrupt Presidency since Wilson. This is also why people like Chris Matthew Sciabarra are no longer involved. This was a golden opportunity for TOC, and it was wasted.

Also, unfortunately, David Kelley couldn't figure out an effective way to keep undesirables out of his seminars. He did after all attract people like a certain woman who currently lives in Colorado. She is originally from Maryland and graduated from Washington University in Saint Louis. Around 2004 or so, to many people's surprise (but not mine), she declared war on just about everyone from TOC and went over to ARI. She was the first person to do TOC's web site, but now she is on her way to being just a face in the crowd.

Post 19

Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 11:28am