RoR: Forum

I selected "Uncharismatic Advocates" but only because it reflects a symptom of what I consider a needy, clingy streak that too many people never outgrow and so seek "Charismatic Leaders" to follow.

When I suggest to people the importance of time alone to introspect and to bond with oneself and with nature in solitude, and that one can live in a state of not "neeeeeeeeeeding others" in that way, I usually hear bromides in protest such as:

No man is an island!
People need people!

Yada, yada, yada. I think John Dewey and his influence on socialized education has much to do with this. Thoughts?

Post 1

Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 3:24pm

There is a minimum level of inertia which an intellectual advocate has to overcome with his audience. There are so many voices, the one that mumbles is rivhtfully ignored. Talking heads such as Hitchens, Paglia and Coulter come to the table with a certain amount of energy and attention-getting that people like Yaron Brook do not convey. (I am obviously not talking about the content, but the form of the message.) Brook is a fine speaker if one is interested in correctness of content. But with people who have not heard of Objectivism, there is little about him to be excited about. Listening to him speak, one might as well turn off the sound, and listen to the subtitles.

If one wants to argue that content is all, and that form is a sop for mushy brained people unable to think and in need of entertainment, then one might as well do away with spokespeople entirely, and let texts speak for themselves. But texts don't speak for themselves. Rand dramatized her message in fiction. One doesn't read a child's bedtime story in a monotone, telling him that it is the message, and not how it is conveyed, that counts. Objectivism denies the reason/emotion dichotomy. The good message should also be a strong message. Deweyism replaces thought with emotion. Randianism does not replace emotion with thought - it communicates both.

Post 2

Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 3:32pm

Ted, I agree with your observations.

I have to wonder, however, if a culture with a private education system largely employing the Montessori method would more critically examine content regardless of delivery.

Post 3

Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 4:00pm

I chose "Religious objections" because I think most people religiously believe that socialism is better for the poor and religiously care too much for useless people. But I'm guessing you meant that people believe in God and are unwilling to consider a philosophy that openly rejects the supernatural?

Post 4

Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 4:06pm

It depends how that message gets in front of you. People should, of course, have the ability to analyze a flat logical argument. But in a society of free adults, one does not expect people to sit down for a set number of hours a week just to dispassionately examine random theses, as if they were in scholl. The ideas have to be presented, and presented as personally meaningful - i.e., with emotional consequences.

Imagine if, every time you saw Hitchens make a good point on Charlie Rose, he said casually, "using Ayn rand's notion of the stolen concept, we can see why this is absurd..." You might, if you agreed with him, wonder who was this Ayn Rand of whom he spoke.

The problem is that Objectivist spokesmen often come accross as dull - Brook - or shrill - Peikoff. The best performance I have seen by an Objectivist recently was Hudgins appearance on the Star Wars documentary on the History Channel. The subject itself was positive and appealing. It did not lend itself to a dispassionate emotionless approach. Of course, I wonder what Ed said that was left on the cutting room floor.

I voted for "focus on the negative" as the main problem. My immediate personal response to address that issue lies here.

Post 5

Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 4:15pm

The second, Dean. I realized that in keeping the options as short as possible that this made them open to interpretation. But the purpose of a poll is to incite discussion, not to elicit the one "correct" answer. You may have noticed that my polls usually get a very broad range of responses, with FDR as worst president and Jodi Foster as the ideal Dagny being notable exceptions.

Oh, and I did consider the embrace of altruism as a possible choice.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/24, 4:16pm)

Post 6

Monday, August 25, 2008 - 6:22am

Just for fun, I parsed the options into "us" versus "them," and put the current percentages in front of each option.

The problem is in the culture:
- 0, The media doesn't give Rand any publicity
- 6, Enemies slander Rand
- 6, The religious object to Objectivism
- 17, The culture is anti-ideological
- 11, The Academy resists Objectivist ideas
----
40

We are the problem:
- 0, Our advocates scare the public,
- 17, Our advocates are uncharismatic,
- 17, Some 'Objectivists' are cultish,
- 6, Some admirers stay quiet about Objectivism's values
- 22, Too much focus on the negative by Objectivists
----
62

Maybe the poll should have had another option:
- We are too critical of each other. (Naw, we are like one happy family ;-)

Post 7

Monday, August 25, 2008 - 10:03am

This poll bears strong relevance to this Clubs Forum post so please consider visiting that thread and sharing your thoughts.

Post 8

Monday, August 25, 2008 - 12:24pm

I think it's a mixture of some of the given options. But the big three have to be lack of anyone Media outlets even interested in philosophy. Media outlets today are about buzzwords, flashy graphics, and sound bites. The second one is the fact that some folks that do subscribe to some of Rand's ideas do sometimes come off as nutty as those Realians or other New Age crackpots (or Alex Jones), so who would want to peek under the jacket of any of Rand's books if such folks speak of her or claim to speak for her [ideas]? And finally, it's that some folks are more or less unwilling to learn new things as they get older. So, when I've tried to discuss Objectivism or even something as simple as Scientific Naturalism I get cut off by most folks over the age of 25 as if some switch in their head has been placed in the "I don't give a shit if it's useful, right, or beneficial just shut up already" position. Then again, on the third one I think it's because I have as much charisma as a stone (*shrugs*).

Post 9

Monday, August 25, 2008 - 3:37pm

There should have been an option for "low birth rate." Objectivism could really use more breeders.

Thank Galt for Atlas sphere!

Post 10

Monday, August 25, 2008 - 4:08pm

Steve, I purposefully included "us" versus "them" options - very insightful, and you saved me the necessity of having to point that out.

Teresa, on the money as usual.

Post 11

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 10:09pm

Looking back at post #6 where I parsed the options into "us" versus "them" and thinking about it a little more, I come up with this:

If the media gave Objectivism more exposure (i.e., with our current leaders), then they would scare the public more, and expose our uncharismatic leaders even more. If increased exposure caused the public to look closer, they'd see the 'cultish' behavior of some and the strong focus on the negative that is in the movement. And that would encourage some Objectivists to be even quieter rather than to be identified with the wing nuts.

So, the media isn't the problem, and no way we are going to stop enemies from slandering Rand - the irrational choose irrational tactics. The religious are always going to object to Objectivism. So going back to approach the initial question a little bit differently, I ask, "What should we address to best increase the spread of Objectivism?" I chose to make changes to education (the closest on the list is 'Academic resistance') because it is out of a changed educational system that one can look at the possibility of a flood of new supporters. And that may be the best answer to getting new leaders with a new focus.

Post 12

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 8:00am

This poll needs an "Other" category. In lieu of this, here's my 2 cents:

The anti-liberty neo-con warmongering mindset of some of its proponents. War is the health of the state, and some alleged Objectivists just don't fucking get this basic truth.

Good thing I didn't say how I really feel, or some folks here might take offense (pun intended). ;)

Post 13

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 9:37am

I voted anti-ideological culture. Many of the other choices, I think, are more characteristic of Objectivist reaction to popular culture. Ted's point on Focus on the negative is good, but it still pre-supposes that the rest of society is even listening (or that enough Objectivists are even talking).

Anti-ideological culture (assuming I'm interpreting this expression correctly) is one reason why some Objectivists (like myself, actually) don't speak out, and why other Objectivists become shrill (Piekoff, but I'd still lump Brooks in with him). The absence of adequate public knowledge of Objectivism, except for impressions formed from hearing only the shrill remarks, gives easy rise to slander and the accusations of cultishness.

Religious objections are obvious, but -at least in western society - religious people are more willing to separate their religious views from their ethical views now than in the past. Religious people can still spout some Objectivist views, and they may understand that Objectivism doesn't threaten their right to worship (despite the obvious differences).

If Atlas Shrugged does finally make it to the big screen, Rand and Objectivism will certainly get some publicity. I'm sure opponents of Objectivism will seize on it for an impromtu disinformation campaign. I'd hope Objectivist groups might have a positive, organized information campaign ready if ever the film gets into theaters.

jt

Post 14

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 2:56pm

In the past, I remember seeing the poll results in a zebra-stripe shade for each option. I no longer see these poll results. Does anyone have advice for me to try out (to see the poll results)?

Ed

Post 15

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 3:07pm

Jay,

If Atlas Shrugged does finally make it to the big screen, Rand and Objectivism will certainly get some publicity. I'm sure opponents of Objectivism will seize on it for an impromtu disinformation campaign. I'd hope Objectivist groups might have a positive, organized information campaign ready if ever the film gets into theaters.

Good point. I remember back in the late 1950's -- I don't actually remember back then, because I wasn't born yet -- I remember back in the late 1950's, when Atlas Shrugged hit the book-stands, there was a flurry of awfully chiding critiques written by some proto-NeoCons of the time. I think one of them was printed in National Review.

Rand was pissed to hell and back about the reaction of these proto-NeoCons (to her philosophy for living on Earth).

Ed

Post 16

Thursday, August 28, 2008 - 5:04am

Regarding Ed's comment on the National Review critique of Atlas Shrugged:

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

Isn't the internet cool?

Post 17

Thursday, August 28, 2008 - 8:58am

Good old Whittaker "Gas" Chambers.

If you removed the direct references in his "review", could you tell that he was reviewing Atlas Shrugged?

The picture is from Wikipedia, where they state that he was a communist spy and eventually left the Communist Party because "the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact was reportedly the final straw in turning Chambers against the Soviet Union. He saw the pact as a betrayal of Communist values, and was also afraid that the information he had been supplying to the Soviets would be made available to Nazi Germany." [Emphasis added.]

Post 18

Thursday, August 28, 2008 - 1:22pm

Glenn,

... they state that he [Whittaker Chambers] was a communist spy and eventually left the Communist Party because "the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact was reportedly the final straw in turning Chambers against the Soviet Union. He saw the pact as a betrayal of Communist values, ...

Well, now that sounds like he was a liberal who had been mugged by reality. As a disgruntled leftist, he does fit the formula for a NeoCon.

:-)

In order to extrapolate how Rand would view NeoCons, take someone with most of the evils of the liberal Left and add to him or her all of the evils of the conservative Right (along with some of the good of the Right) -- and then ask yourself how Rand would view that person.

Just sayin' ...

Ed

Post 19

Thursday, August 28, 2008 - 5:52pm