| | I have a somewhat different perspective to offer. Frankly, I find the idea that one of the major barriers to acceptance of Objectivism (or the wider spread of Objectivism)is "Objectivist society" or Objectivists themselves wrongheaded and disturbing. I say this for several reasons. First, I think it is simply demonstrably not true. Do any of you who propound this view truly believe that if we woke up tomorrow morning, and EVERYONE in Objectivism were like David Kelley, or Chris Sciabarra, or Lindsay Perigo, that the world would change that much faster -- and that suddenly significant numbers of people who resist Objectivism for a variety of reasons would see the light, and accept it? A related factor is, I think, and with all due respect, a failure to appreciate the nature of deep cultural change -- and the time required for such a change. Our culture, even though it is better is certain measurable ways (and I plan to write about one of those ways in the near future)than a few decades ago, remains dominated by the unholy trinity identified by Rand decades ago: altruism, mysticism, and collectivism. To reach this point took more than a century, and to reverse these trends, using history as a guide, will take at least that long. (I also agree with Linz that the anti-conceptual mentality is a huge impediment to even understanding the issues involved, let alone understanding and accepting Objectivism.)
I said that I find this focus on "Objectivist society" disturbing for this reason: I have seen this phenomenon in Objectivism for almost 40 years, involving a succession of people,and it has always struck me as, at bottom, pointless and needless. And, as the "newbie" to Objectivism noted above, this constant discussion of infighting, factionalism and the like has to be enormously troubling to anyone new to Objectivism. I view such discussion and analysis as a "necessary evil," if you will. It IS important and necessary to understand what is wrong with the doctrinaire and authoritarian approach of Peikoff, et al., so as to know what those mistakes are, and to avoid repeating them. But that's all that's necessary. After you've done that, get on with the positive message of Objectivism in any way you can: write articles here, but perhaps more importantly, write letters to the editor, contact your government representatives, try to get articles published in your local newspaper (if that sort of thing interests you) -- but, in any and every way you can (including your daily interactions with other people), get the positive message out. And, as we all apparently agree, Objectivism, at its foundation and in its most important aspects, has a profoundly positive, indeed inspirational, message. I think it's a question of emphasis: rather than sounding like the Soviet Communist Party (are we Trotskyites, Leninists, Stalinists, etc., etc. ad nauseum) or the fractious followers of Freud, focus on what you think is true and right -- and tell the world about it, in all the ways you can.
I'm reminded of David Kelley's essay, "Better Things to Do," in which he discussed the necessity of dealing with ARI and the problems it engenders, but then -- and as quickly as possible -- moving beyond that, to much more important things. And I think it's safe to say we all have better things to do.
|
|
