Forty Year Decline of Objectivism: 1967-2007

I also, agree, generally a good post, and I have sanctioned it. I do understand that many people who have come to Objectivism from the Left were instinctively anti-Bush from the beginning. I didn't vote for him in his first election, but would have voted for him in the second, except that he had no chance of winning NY. Most of us who were otherwise of the Right or not unsupportive of Bush have been quite disillusioned with his performance. It seems that anything at all that is going right in Iraq is inspite of Bush's efforts.

But I cannot quite fathom this statement of Chris's, that Bush's has been "the most corrupt Presidency since Wilson." Did you mean disastrous, Chris? Inept? Those epithets might make sense, except perhaps not in the superlative. But corrupt? Neither Wilson nor Bush nor their administrations could be described as particularly corrupt in a monetary or a moral sense. Indeed, the Clinton administration was certainly the most corrupt administration ever, with Clinton accepting campaign donations from the Chinese military, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, stealing the furniture and White House silverware, Gore admitting that he technically broke campaign laws by soliciting money from the Vice Presidential office - remember: "No controlling authority?" Need I bring up cattle futures, pardons for sale, 700+ illegally obtained FBI dossiers, China being given a closed California military base, etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda? I don't particularly remember any corruption surrounding Wilson, (one of our worst presidents, indeed,) I'd have to research the matter. Having done a term-paper on him, I think if he had been particularly corrupt, I would have remembered.

To get to the point, since Clinton the perjurer was certainly infinitely more corrupt than either of these men, I have to wonder, is this just a sloppy choice of words, or a symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Ted

Post 21

Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 9:35pm

Having women in positions of leadership doesn't necessarily bring in women. The Libertarian Party has three women as VP candidates. I sometimes think the women rise to the top just because they are so few of them.

Interestingly enough, some of the best women I've known in the movement aren't with Objectivist men at all.

And, sadly, the Objectivist movement isn't known for happy marriages.

Post 22

Thursday, June 7, 2007 - 9:44pm

I just thought of another thing that has been said to me by an academic who has spoken at TOC several times. He said that TOC needs to stop encouraging students to go into philosophy.

His reasons were solely practical. He simply didn't think there are enough jobs for them, and that any Objectivist will have a tough time finding a job. He pointed that David Kelley couldn't really get a job in academia either. He also mentioned that many brilliant and talented people were having trouble just getting started.

But these same people could pursue doctorates in other fields like law, psychology, or economics. It would be just as effective, too. Some of these people are doing well with their lives.

I don't have a doctorate in anything myself, but it does sound like it is a tremendous investment. I certainly wouldn't want someone to get a doctorate and then not find a job when they get it. That's a tragedy.

Post 23

Friday, June 8, 2007 - 6:47am

A non-activist Objectivist friend of mine (a Biology/Philosophy double major like myself) who attended Johns Hopkins class of '90 knew a woman Objectivist graduate student. He wouldn't even tell me her name, she had sworn him to secrecy. She was going to hide her affiliation until she got tenure. I hope she has done so.

As for Objectivist marriages, I'm not so concerned that without activist Objectivists marrying the movement won't grow. What is needed is people who happen to be Objectivists applying reason to their daily lives and bringing up their children to think. Christians took over the Roman empire not by having Orthodox adult converts. Most converts were such in name only. But their children were raised and schooled as Christians. When we can start getting children trained as conceptually integrating free-thinkers, the rest will take care of itself.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer on 6/08, 6:55am)

Post 24

Friday, June 8, 2007 - 6:51am

Chris,

I agree that students should get doctorates in other fields unless philosophy is really really their "calling". The job market for philosophy PhD's is very tight. The only advantages in having a PhD are that you can teach or that you can apprentice under a subject content expert in the exact field you wish to pursue.

Jim

Post 25

Friday, June 8, 2007 - 7:19am

Chris,

I don't think there is anything "magic" about marrying another Objectivist. If you spend a good portion of your time doing Objectivist activities and you marry someone who is actively against it, of course you are going to be unhappy or at least on your toes a good part of the time :-).

Sharing universal values is definitely a plus, but in most people's lives universal values occupy a minority of their time. The particular work you have chosen, your recreational activities, what kind of living environment you like all occupy a majority of your time and are major considerations.

Given that, when you look for a romantic partner, in addition to romantic chemistry, you are looking for that cluster of universal and optional values that is the best fit for you. Also, pining for someone who doesn't reciprocate is just an exercise in masochism. How deep someone's love is for you is a HUGE factor in choosing a partner.

Jim

Post 26

Friday, June 8, 2007 - 8:28am

"Don't you call me a mindless philosopher!" -- C3PO

This standard information from the University of Alabama website http://www.as.ua.edu/philos/why.php(among many other places) also appears as a bulletin board for the philosophy department of Eastern Michigan University with 8x10s of the most famous faces:

Prominent Philosopher Majors: The broad value of philosophy is illustrated by those who have philosophy degrees: John Elway, Phil Jackson, Vaclav Havel, Justice David Souter, Philip Glass, Joel Coen, Bruce Lee, Susan Sarandon, Harrison Ford, Jay Leno, Steve Allen, William Bennett, William Jefferson Clinton, Woody Allen, Philip K. Dick, David Duchovny, Iris Murchod, Pope John Paul II, Mike Schmidt, Stone Phillips, Steve Martin, Gene Siskel, Elie Wiesel, James Michener and Alex Trebek. I add also, the late R. William Bradford who turned gold into ideas and then turned ideas into gold.

You cannot "change the world" by preaching philosophy to masses of people. People only hear the message they already believe. People do what they do, what they always did. The people who change the world are those who do something new and different. What counted most: Aristotle's years of lecturing to the masses at the Lyceum or his years of tutoring one boy at Pella?

Many Objectivists are true believers of low self-esteem who come to a prebuilt worldview that makes them important in the face of overwhelming odds and delivers an eschatology of salvation for the future. Marxism is a lot like that, too.

What counts is not whether other people agree with you, but whether you believe in yourself. People who argue with others are uncertain inside. People detect that and they do not respect it. If you are who you are inside regardless, well, people can tell that, too. That's when they say that they do not agree with you, but they respect you.

Post 27

Friday, June 8, 2007 - 1:54pm

Also Joan Rivers and Carly Fiorina. Max Palevsky (electronics millionaire [back when that was a lot of money], art collector, philanthropist and McGovern moneybags) dropped out of grad school at UCLA.

Post 28

Saturday, June 9, 2007 - 11:59am

Michael:

Apparently, I stand alone.

I see Objectivism has having been very successful these past 50 years.

I'd agree with that. I don't know what kind of mission one is on when one is on a mission to change 'the' world, as in, the behaviour of all of the people in 'the' world, as if that concept would or should ever usefully be thought of a singular thing. As soon as one starts off on a mission to marshall up humanity, as if it was a singular thing to be led around, like bees in a bee colony, well....one is starting off on a well worn path, a time honored tradition., one that inevitably ends up with millions of corpses rotting under the Sun. I'm not sure I ever sensed any great admirration for that concept in anything Rand ever wrote.

It was the strength of Rand's ideas that definitely changed some of the world, not the size of any jarring Randian Mob/Army, which is more than enough. I can't begin to fathom an interpretation of Rand that concludes 'Objectivism has to mob up, or else it is a failure.'

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.

In other words, what is true for the group "human beings in general" is true for the group "Objectivists" as well. Objectively, on the average, groups/mobs are average. That is in fact what gives some of the herdists/tribalists great comfort in the herd/tribe, it is a place where the act of being as average as possible is a virtue, and was at one time in certain contexts a strategy for survival. I think that is an almost atavistic response in some, the urge to 'herd up.' But, so is seeing lions in the grass, so is constantly being on the alert for conflict, and so is the ability to detect conflict long before it actually exists. You need no more proof of that than a visit to any Little League game in America, and witness the current sturm und drang of hairless sweaty apes in the stands, screaming at 11 year old kids playing a game for striking out, as if losing to that other recently named suburban intersection was actually going to result in the pillaging and rape of their corner of the village.

regards,
Fred

Post 29

Saturday, June 9, 2007 - 1:29pm

Chris Baker (Post 21) writes,

Interestingly enough, some of the best women I've known in the movement aren't with Objectivist men at all.

I know an Objectivist who married a staunch Catholic, one who attended mass faithfully. Their marriage lasted onger than you might expect, but eventually dissolved. I don't know how his wife justified marrying a non-Catholic let alone an atheist, because mixed marriage is disapproved of by the Catholic Church. But falling in love is almost never based on one's explicit philosophical values, which brings to mind Rand's memorable quip, "Show me what a man finds sexually attractive [she said "man" not "person"] and I'll show you his entire philosophy of life." Evidently, she mean implicit philosophy, not explicit. Romantic love may well be simply a matter of "sense of life" -- one's subconscious attitudes and values -- which may be what Rand was referring to. But if there are strong ideological or philosophical differences, these could prove to be an obstacle to a successful or lasting marriage.

And, sadly, the Objectivist movement isn't known for happy marriages.

Well, it certainly has its share of failed marriages, but I wonder if the percentage isn't pretty much the same as the rest of society. Nowadays, if people aren't happy, they separate or divorce; years ago, they stuck it out even if they were miserable. So, the divorce rate is not necessarily an indication that marriages today are less successful or happy than they used to be. It could simply reflect people's unwillingness to stay in a marriage that no longer serves their interests.

- Bill

Post 30

Saturday, June 9, 2007 - 9:46pm

So long as the baby comes out Catholic...

Strictly speaking, mixed marriage is not disapproved but is discouraged by the Church. However, it is "better to marry than to burn." There's little point in telling a couple they can't wed, these are not the days of Abelard and Heloise. So long as the non-Catholic spouse is not actively objectionable, and the couple evidence an intention to raise the children within the Church, a Church wedding (considered a sacrament) is permissible by the Church.

When my cousin married a black girl, the marriage was kept secret for a while from my Irish grandmother, in case she might react inappropriately. After it was obvious that my cousin's wife was carrying, my grandmother was told. She responded that she was happy, and didn't care a bit, so long as the baby came out Catholic.

Ted

Post 31

Saturday, June 9, 2007 - 11:38pm

> You need no more proof of that than a visit to any Little League game in America, and witness the current sturm und drang of hairless sweaty apes in the stands, screaming at 11 year old kids playing a game for striking out

I've never seen this at a *single* Little League game. And I suspect, neither have you.

Post 32

Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 9:41am

I have to agree with Phil here. I played a couple of seasons of t-ball and a couple of seasons of Little league and I saw nothing but supportive adults. Our coach was the Dean of a local college. There were a lot of other things he could have been doing with his time. He chose to spend it with us.

Jim

Post 33

Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 1:10pm

I have seen this sort behavior both as a child and more recently as well as having seen it reported in the media. Such things were uncommon but not unknown in my youth in the early '80's. (I wonder if James and Phil are thinking of more genteel times and places?) The use of children as props and proxies has a long pedigree. Think of Mozart and Beethoven displayed by their fathers as child prodigies and of Jon-Benet Ramsey. I'm no fan of politically-correct conflict-free scoreless ballgames and other childhood competitions where everyone wins and where "All Must Have Prizes."

Ted

Post 34

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 3:59am

So long as the non-Catholic spouse is not actively objectionable, and the couple evidence an intention to raise the children within the Church, a Church wedding (considered a sacrament) is permissible by the Church.

Two years ago, one of my friends got married in New York (Queens). The wedding took place in a Catholic church, however, apparently since she was not Catholic, the priest in that particular church had declined to perform the ceremony. They ended up renting the church out, and bringing in a "ringer" (he was a chaplain at a college upstate) to perform the ceremony. Everything went well until the rehearsal, when the priest informed the couple he would not be giving communion during the wedding since the bride would not be able to partake (he thought it was tacky). That caused quite a commotion, but it all worked out.

Post 35

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 2:04pm

The priest has the option of "blessing" the non-Catholic spouse who does not partake of communion. Even a Jew shouldn't mind "The peace of the Lord be with you." (The ceremony can also be co-officiated. And not all who attend mass take communion anyway, if they do not find themselves in the proper internal state - indeed a Catholic not in a state of race is enjoined from taking communion but is not barred from attending mass.) This is at the option of the Pastor (chief priest of the Parish) according to the guidelines of the local Diocese (Bishopric). Sounds like the Brooklyn priest was squirmish or perhaps failed in his Catechical studies. If you won't do the ceremony, then why allow the use of the Church? Did he need the rent money that bad?

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 6/11, 5:18pm)

Post 36

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 2:57pm

I now think there is a deeper issue, one which should be fully understood prior to debating the two types of threads I've started on one or more boards recently: I. The current status or size or direction of growth or shrinkage of the Objectivist movement, II. The need for systematic training and educating of Objectivists, and how to do it.

This issue has to do with something often overlooked about the -nature- of Objectivism and I'd like to start a thread on this soon. My contention is that the deepest facts about Objectivism that affect I and II and all the problems we have in growing our movement, educating and developing Objectivists, changing the world, and avoiding internal acrimony has to do with THREE FACTS ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

Can anyone guess what they might be? The contest starts now.

"Objectivism is _____, ______, and _____."

.......

I'll start handing out the prize money (best answer, funniest answer, most unusual answer) as soon as the responses come rolling in and prior to starting my breathlessly anticipated new thread.

Which will have the above name.

Post 37

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 3:11pm

For one thing, Objectivism is 'self-ism', concern with the individual as the primary.... as opposed to 'other-ism' which is concern with others as the primary - and is the herd or group or tribal view of relations.... which is why they have it easier 'gathering in the multitudes'....... it does not, however, be indicative of its influence, which parlays to the individual mind, not the group [which has no mind]... thus, as a movement, there is that inherant problem, yet as a philosophical influence, that problem does not really exist...... which is why her books continue selling as they do year after year and read by millions and millions - and as such exert influence far beyond what a movement would...

Post 38

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 5:54pm

Can anyone guess what they might be? The contest starts now.

Groan...

"Objectivism is _____, ______, and _____."

Coherent, Reasonable, and Easy.

Or,

Closed, Complete, and Complicated.

Post 39

Monday, June 11, 2007 - 9:53pm