RoR: Forum

Joe,

Thanks for a fantastic article! Every day I work with people who have an incredible diversity of backgrounds and beliefs. We can sit and discuss all sorts of issues over a meal, often disagreeing with one another. I could wish everyone agreed with all of the tenets of Objectivism, but I feel no need to deny the value I get from my day to day relationships with people who don't share my views. I can still champion my views without sacraficing my life to them.

Post 1

Friday, November 12, 2004 - 6:25am

Joe, you've made some excellent points here. I have found it much more effective to ask my friends and family thought-provoking questions that convey the underlying principles of Objectivism, which requires them to do the work of thinking in order to understand me. I make my arguments point by point, and 90% of the time I am effective in helping them to discover a new way of seeing and understanding the world around them.

If they accepted everything I said at face value, it would be a meaningless victory. Sure, this method may take a bit longer, but when/if they have arrived at my point of view, they will have done so via their own convictions. And even if they never arrive at complete agreement, there will remain an underlying level of respect on both sides that has stemmed from intellectual discourse, rather than dogmatic preaching or blind acceptance.

Post 2

Friday, November 12, 2004 - 7:27am

Excellent article, Joe! There will always be some variations in our understanding of Objectivism--and even honest and insignificant differences in application. But that is loads better than memorizing the Ayn Rand lexicon!

Post 3

Friday, November 12, 2004 - 7:54am

Joe, what a fine piece of work! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and I'd like to share the part that was so profound that it knocked me on my philosophical ass:
-----------
If you insist that they have to accept everything, you're also pushing a kind of mind-body dichotomy.� You're praising the importance of being right, instead of the value gained from being right.� It's as if being rational and logical were virtues in themselves, and that they have nothing to do with living.� And furthermore, you're preaching that logical consistency is more important than a true connection with reality.

Another problem is that you're stressing agreement, and not necessarily understanding.� The results are terrible.�
-----------
Thanks Joe (Ed gets up from the floor; much more stable, centered, confident, and wise).

Ed

Post 4

Friday, November 12, 2004 - 8:01am

Yet another insightful article out of Joe Rowlands! It is indeed a struggle to introduce Objectivist ideas to the uninitiated, and a piecemeal approach definitely seems to be the best way to go about it in most (if not all) cases.

In particular, I find the immorality of altrusim to be one of the hardest issues to address with people. Altruism, in its various forms, is so prevalent in the mindset of most individuals. I've found that if you come out with a vicious attack on altrusim right out of the gates, you will not get very far in persuading someone to accept your arguments.

I find it particularly problematic when I'm in a group conversation, and soon learn that all the other participants are operating from drastically different premises than mine. This situation happened a lot during this election year, particularly with co-workers and in social situations with people I don't know very well. I have a tendency to clam up in these settings, and I regret this because my silence might be interpreted as tacit agreement or approval with bad ideas. But I find it awkward to reduce the conversation to fundamental or underlying premises when I know the other people have never even thought about things in those terms, and there is a risk of others getting hostile when the foundations of their worldview(s) are questioned.

Post 5

Friday, November 12, 2004 - 9:01am

Amen. I think of Objectivism (and any good idea) like nourishment. You want to give a little and watch 'em grow. But don�t over saturate! Of course, you'll have to play it by ear as every individual is, well, an individual.

Post 6

Friday, November 12, 2004 - 9:15am

As usual, an excellent article, Joseph. There is a safety in agreement which I think appeals to some. I have found more intellectual challenge and growth for all sides because of respectful disagreement and debate. I see it here. There are folks who I disagree with vehemently on certain issues, but whose sense of life is close to my own.

John

Post 7

Friday, November 12, 2004 - 6:57am

True or false: Most people are basically honest.

Broadly, we do not know "most people." Ultimately, we only know ourselves. We tend to project on others what we experience within ourselves. (Of course, that, too is a projection. So, perhaps, I really am speaking only for myself.) The point is that for myself, it can take a while for a challenging idea to sink in. Certainly, I am excited by compelling new ideas. Often, however, the ideas that I reject out of hand prove valuable Knowing this about myself, it is easy for me to wait for other people to accept the ideas I present.

I just came from delivering a talk at a conference about "Coinage and Identities in the Ancient World." My thesis is that Alexander the Great put himself on his "Herakles" issues. It is not a popular idea. The people in the audience included some collectors and numismatists. Most of the audience were other presenters, academics from the British Museum, the Ashmolean at Oxford, places like that. At the end of my presentation, there were no questions. That was not a good sign. However, I believe that in time, the facts I presented will eventually be absorbed and some of these people may come to agree with me. Perhaps most will not. Perhaps none will. Ultimately, it does not matter, of course.

I mention all of that because there is the fact that if an idea is correct, you will not need to sell it. People will take it. Of course, there are different styles of selling. Some are more fruitful than others.

I also believe that you cannot rationally argue someone out of a position that they did not rationally argue themselves into in the first place.

Long, long ago, I read an essay in The Freeman about "the remnant." The article was based on an Old Testament story: take the remnant of your people... The point of the article was that it might not be possible to "convince everyone" about the benefits of the free market. Those who are interested will understand and that is all that is important. I see objectivism like that.

Then, too, there is another set of facts, entirely. Broadly, Harry Browne summed it up as "freedom in an unfree world." You can never remake the entire world into your idea of paradise. You have to make the best of the world you live in. The word in bold is "you" not "world."

Post 8

Friday, November 12, 2004 - 5:44pm

"These are like the people who claim Objectivism is whatever Rand said,"

I have a funny feeling I read in Rands writing - that this is exactly what she herself said!
Ayn Rand said, "Objectivism is the name I have given to the philosophy I have described and written about. That, and only that, is Objectivism"
.

Post 9

Friday, November 12, 2004 - 11:54pm

Beautiful article, Joe. We have enough Objectivist clones as it is, without trying to add more.

I find that the easiest way to introduce people to Objectivism is, when we're discussing ideas that Rand deals with and they seem interested, to suggest that they read her novels or non-fiction. I tell them that I don't agree with everything Rand taught, but with much of it. Their response to Rand's work usually will tell you whether or not there's a point in proceeding. If they are struck by one or more of the important concepts, then there is a point in proceeding. If not, not.

I encountered a real oddity a few years ago. I'm still shaking my head over it. A couple I met and spent a couple of evenings with, decided to read "The Passion of Ayn Rand" because they were interested in some of the things I had to say. They said they loved the book, and they hurried to get "Atlas," reading it almost nonstop and raving about it. There was only one problem. Not a single idea they held was altered in the least by what they read. They were liberals, and remained liberals; they were religious, and remained religious; they believed they should be their brothers' keeper, and continued believing it.

The moral of the story, I concluded, was that there are some people it's pointless to discuss ideas with. But I still wonder sometimes what went on in this couple's heads when they were reading "Atlas."

Barbara

Post 10

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 4:46am

Hi Barbara,

I know a few people that love Rand's novels for the passion of the characters.

Often I am blown away by her descriptions of the settings like: the colors of the changing seasons; the movement of light in Rearden's factory; or the glistening on a bead of water which splits a copper wire.

The scenes are vivid, so much so they stick in my mind for years--as do great scenes from movies or images from great art works do.

I can understand someone could enjoy reading Atlas as art like I enjoy looking at paintings that I don't like the subject but love the method.

Michael

Post 11

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 4:49am

Joe--You have a beautiful mind.

Michael

Post 12

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 6:56pm

Joe:

This is the best antidote to ARI syndrome I have ever read. Thank you.

Post 13

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 7:28pm

Michael: "I know a few people that love Rand's novels for the passion of the characters."

I consider that to be something important about her novels and, indirectly, about Objectivism. And I think that anyone who responds to the novels as art, has gone a long way toward accepting at least some of the ideas of Objectivism; we all know people who hate them as art.

Barbara

Post 14

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 8:11pm

"we all know people who hate them as art."

Another interesting combination is the type of man who agrees with objectivism but who cannot stand Rand's novels. They generally strike me as an unintelligible type, but somehow they manage to exist.

Post 15

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 4:56pm

I agree with the question approach to explaining our ideas to people. But, I don't see one as opposed to the other. Both, questioning and a friendly discussion about what Objectivism is - without sugar-coating the views - is, I think, the best approach. Dogma is bad, and so is the weak-kneed method employed by some friendly with The Objectivist Center.

It's funny how others communicate their views. Today, on my way, back from seeing a Chaplin film. My Objectivist friend
and I noticed this guy with an "I hate Bush! " button. I kindly replied, even as I suspected that he's probably a knee-jerk anti-American: "I like Bush (a bit of an exaggeration for the purposes of exposing his views). "Why do you hate him?" He reacted with anger and indignation. All he said was: "I didn't want to talk about it. I don't want to talk to you." Odd, isn't it? I wasn't the one wearing my political views on my coat. He wants to express his views like a cheap coward. How pathetic.

Post 16

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 5:26pm

I should mention that I did point out to him that I wasn't the one wearing my political views for all to see.

Post 17

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 4:58am

"I encountered a real oddity a few years ago. I'm still shaking my head over it. A couple I met and spent a couple of evenings with, decided to read "The Passion of Ayn Rand" because they were interested in some of the things I had to say. They said they loved the book, and they hurried to get "Atlas," reading it almost nonstop and raving about it. There was only one problem. Not a single idea they held was altered in the least by what they read. They were liberals, and remained liberals; they were religious, and remained religious; they believed they should be their brothers' keeper, and continued believing it.

The moral of the story, I concluded, was that there are some people it's pointless to discuss ideas with. But I still wonder sometimes what went on in this couple's heads when they were reading "Atlas."" Barbara

Your comments about your acquaintances made me thing that they simply approached Atlas like they probably do religion and social issues; unthinkingly.

Michael

Post 18

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 5:00am

If one keeps to the term 'altruism', there will always be a problem - because of the, falsely, view of benevolence in volved with word....... but - if one uses the term 'otherism', which is what altruism means, then there is neutrality, and the issue of it being , in practice, a slaver mindset, comes to the fore..... and the arguments against it can make better headway.....

Post 19

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 2:44am