Adoption of Objectivism

This is one of the most important questions I've ever read concerning Objectivism. I voted "Within the next 100 years." I genuinely hope I am wrong.
J

Post 1

Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 9:46pm

I'm glad you liked my question. I also find it a fascinating one. I voted 'Never'. It was either that or the 500 years category. Having said that, I also would be delighted to be proven completely wrong!

Whilst 500 years seems a long time, it's only the time that has already elapsed from the Renaissance to now. Have we advanced technologically, economically, scientifically, since then? Undoubtedly. Have we advanced philosophically? Much more debatable.

I look forward to reading other people's votes and comments on this subject.

Post 2

Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 10:21pm

A friendly counterpoint Jonathan:
"Whilst 500 years seems a long time, it's only the time that has already elapsed from the Renaissance to now. Have we advanced technologically, economically, scientifically, since then? Undoubtedly. Have we advanced philosophically? Much more debatable."

But will the flurry of advancement in technology and scientific method in the last century lend an exponentially increasing push to the exchange and reformation of philosphical ideals? Therefore "shortening the way", to use the Bene Gesserit term.
J

Post 3

Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 12:11am

Or will it simply produce more of the same, with people continuing to whinge about the profits earnt by those producing the latest cutting-edge technologies? Fascinating thought, Jeremy, either way.

It would be very interesting to hear other people's comments as to why they have voted in the way they have. Especially from the super-optimists who have selected 'Within the next 10 years'!!!

Post 4

Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 11:06am

I voted 100 years. Everytime I picture the cavemen or primitive tribes killing each other I figure, at least we're not doing that anymore! (here at least). But if we overcame eating each other and advancing as we have with freedom thus far, it's my hopes that we'll keep going, hopefully at a faster pace b/c we can actually think now. That's my very scientific methodology for when it'd be possible for almost the whole population to think freely! Of course, things also change very quickly one way or the other...
-Elizabeth

Post 5

Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 1:43pm

It is possible for the principles of Objectivism to become widely accepted within 100 years. It took socialism about that long to become widely accepted.

We can learn a lot from socialists. Instead of maintaining the all or nothing policy that Objectivists have at the moment, Objectivists should, like socialists, work with anyone who even slightly assists in achieving their objectives.

Post 6

Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 3:06pm

>> It is possible for the principles of Objectivism to become widely accepted within 100 years. It took socialism about that long to become widely accepted.

Yes, I suppose it did... But I think the crucial difference is that socialism could only ever become acceptable within 100 years because of *pre-existing* mainstream philosophical ideals; ie altruism, self-sacrifice and the like (notably in the Bible!). Unfortunately, rational self-interest etc. has never been widely understood or accepted in this way. As Rand said when she wrote Atlas Shrugged, she was arguing against the last 2,000 years of history (not an exact quote but you get the meaning).

But hey, I'm still fascinated by this topic...nothing like a bit of future-guessing!

Post 7

Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 8:04pm

I had a different take on this poll. I didn't ask myself when I thought the culture would come around. I asked myself how long it would take for me to change it. I thought 10 was bit optimistic, but within 50 sounds very reasonable.

Post 8

Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 4:18pm

I put down 50 years partly because I remember reading on an objectivists website who calculated the exponential growth of the book sales of Atlas Shrugged based on its past history and predicted somewhere between 40 and 50 years before the objectivist revolution explodes.

IT IS A HISTORICAL INEVITABILITY! :)

All great ideas spend along time in their incubation period, before they impact upon the world. I doubt in 1914 if Lennin thought that in 3 years there would be a communist revolution.

As for the idea of socialism taking 100 years because of the Christian heritage. It only took Christianity about 250 years before it became the official state religion of the Roman Empire. And this under the technological constraints of the time.

I doubt an objectivist state will have developed, however I do believe by this date objectivism will be taken seriously Academicly, Politicaly, Ethicaly. No more talk about a lunatic cult worshiping a mad woman!

Post 9

Monday, June 23, 2003 - 5:50am

I like Joe's comment - there isn't enough of that kind of sentiment around.
I do think, however, that the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" needs to close radically before objectivist ideas can be embraced on a broader scale. Poverty, hunger and poor education are constantly blamed on capitalism, not only in the media, but in the public mind as well. Rational self-interest is a hard sell when people are homeless, hungry and disenfranchised.
I voted "never" because I see the world as going backwards, not forwards - not in technological terms, of course, but in terms of a growing mysticism, the fact that religion and altruism are still so rampant, that war and xenophobia still occur, and that big government flourishes.
These are all impediments to achieving a free society based on objectivist ideals.

Post 10

Monday, June 23, 2003 - 7:52am

I voted for 10 years but I think it is insane to think that the public will ever be philosophically savvy or consistent! I differ from some of the Soloists in that I think culture works from the top/down. From that perspective we are entering a Renaissance. The new wave of reason orientated philosophers, scholars, scientists, media, and artists are breaking ground.

Fox news is a great example of this shift away from synthetic hairshirt wearing journalists from NPR, may they all rot with their mediocre values. It is a blast to watch Fox, they put things into context, they look for essentials, and they don�t mind calling a spade a spade. What a relief.

And yesterday I watched a discussion, with someone from the American Enterprise Institute (?), and they were discussing mostly about politics but this one man commented on how important it is for artists to lead a new cultural direction! What a shock. Which is, btw, what the Foundation for the Advancement of Art is intent on.

Dr. Susan Mc Closky, has made a comparative analysis of Atlas Shrugged with the writings of Homer and the Parables of the Bible. That is absolutely huge in putting Rand into historical and cultural context, the consequences of that documented presentation will probably reverberate forever.

The wit, wisdom, and integration that Steven Pinker uses in discussing cognitive science is wonderful. The depth and soundness of Kelley�s inquirers in epistemology and ethics seem so simple which belie its profundity. Sciabarra�s contributions in putting Objectivism into historical context, wow. All of these things will influence education, public policies.

I think it is a waste to worry about whether your mom or friends or movie stars �get it�. They probable never will. And, of course, looking at them for wisdom is really depressing, and I think we are all fools if we do so!!! It is history makers that will set the tone, the heroes of insight that are reforming institutions of education, philosophy, politics, economics, and aesthetics. I am just in awe of it and very happy and excited to living now; to be part of it.

There is a Dutch expression: Als ya hooft boven de masses got het moot afgesneden! (my Dutch spelling is rusty) Which translates: if you lift your head above the masses it must be cut off. I think it is time to quit looking at the masses for inspiration, direction, and confirmation but to raise your sights and look for the best, brightest, and innovative heroes among us�that is the context which offers excitement for being alive now!

Michael

Post 11

Thursday, July 3, 2003 - 8:43pm

I think the assumption that the "principles of Objectivism" will be widely accepted (in whatever time frame) is flawed.

Why? Because it is based upon an Objectivist world view that sees such acceptance as trickling down from the "intellectuals". The trickle down theory.

The intellectuals will "get it" first - then influence education, the media and finally the individual - who in turn will vote accordingly - and thus influence politics.

I do not accept this process as valid - and if this were the _only_ way such principles could flourish - then it would never happen.

Often Marxism is taken as an intellectual idea that took root from the top down (or Christianity). But this is not correct - it didn't actually take root at all. Why? Because Marxism is inherently flawed and against the nature of reality. It was impossible for it to really take root. Yes, it may have appeared to be successful - for a time, but not for all time. It failed. It will always fail.

Even though Marxism has been influential - it has not really taken root with the ordinary person. The same goes for Christianity. To the extent that a philosophy concurs with reality - to that extent it has the potential to be accepted - but not via trickle down from the intelligentsia.

And this is the key.

Nothing, except that which is rational and in keeping with human nature, can ever take root at all - not in the permanent scheme of things.

To the extent that Objectivism is rational (excusing some of its adherents) it will take root - but not by way of trickle down, or cultural change, or voting, or lobbying, or protesting, or letter writing. It will take root to the extent that the reality of the philosophy is proven by science. And by that I mean, that science must first find evidence of the necessity of rational self interest and individual freedom - as the operative requirements for human progress.

When science discovers, proves, and communicates this fact (which I believe it will), then it will spread - not via the intellectuals, the media or the ballot box, but via technology and the market. For profit.

Of course, it may not be known as Objectivism - or anything for that matter - but such change will be in harmony with it.

Post 12

Friday, August 22, 2003 - 4:14am

Because a generation is about 35 years I voted for 50 years.
With the internet the 'word' is spreading fast enough,but the fertile soil is in short supply.
Objectivism will not be adopted in the mainstream until a substantial percentage of people know the difference between what they think and what they feel.And if, when (as Rand said ) confronted with the choice between:I know and "They" say ,they choose the former. And that depends greatly on the amount of pressure to conform which is placed upon them.
Because more and more people see the importance of a good education , and many choose homeschooling,I believe the tide is turning.Parents are beginning to let their children think for them selves and they are far more likely to come down on the side of primacy of exsistence,reason and individualism.When they do,there is only one philosophy acceptable to them: Objectivism.

Post 13

Friday, September 5, 2003 - 1:45pm

This will NEVER happen. Objectivism is one of the most contradictory and silliest theory I have ever heard about. It contradicts from its very basis: on one hand, it denies the existence of God; on the other hand, it establishes a metaphysical view of reality. You just cannot believe in both propositions at the same time. If there is no God (and that is a good possibility, as far a I think) then there is NO possible metaphysical viewpoint. The genious of Nietzsche is obviously a more constructive philosophy.

Post 14

Sunday, September 7, 2003 - 4:39am

I'm sorry, what?

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality.

The issue of god is a metaphysical issue.

Without a god reality still has a nature, and the objectivist position explains the nature of reality.

Metaphysics isn't just another word for theology.

Post 15

Monday, September 8, 2003 - 8:14am

To Frederic,

It will happen and when it does, your 'god' will not save you from the neccesity of dealing with truth. If you want to know why we do not believe in your silly 'god' visit www.importanceofphilosophy.com and view the section on metaphyisics and misbegotten notions.

Have a real day.

Adam

Post 16

Monday, September 8, 2003 - 11:41am