Forty Year Decline of Objectivism: 1967-2007

"Objectivists" don't find the concept of a massive, marching ever growing Randian lockstep mob/army jarringly packing copies of AS and quoting from the pages per their recent instruction/indoctrination the least bit funny?

Well then, this is easy: Objectivism is cold, dead, and buried.

Whatever happened to, "Education is primarily taken, never given; at best, well offered."    (Who said that? What line of Rand's books did that come from? It's all been said already, all that remains is instruction and rote quotation, surely, somebody must have said that.)   In Rand, education is well offered. She was a success at what is humanly and ethically possible in regards to education, and she did it without mobbing up or worse, by counting the number of possibly empty heads bobbing in agreement or disagreement to formulate her ideas.     Instruction is a prerequisite of education, a necessary but insufficient one.   Instruction/indoctrination can be given, but education must be primarily taken. Rand well offered it.    The warm, gooey gush that comes forth when one is so overwhelmed with insight that the instruction/indoctrination of as many other skins as possible is suddenly justifiable is precisely the warm gooey gush that needs to be inhibited.

Her ideas have already long succeeded where they will, ie, wherever they are taken, and will continue to do so.   Except wherever there still exists remnants of that atavistic gene, that desire to mob up, to herd up, to count heads, to form football teams whose primary purpose is to be our football team, La Cosa Nostra, our thing.    At least 'The Sopranos' had a last episode.

Could Rand have possibly been any less subtle about that?

Isn't that atavistic gooey warm gush exactly what sent the ...

Marxists/Leninists/Stalinists/Tribalists/Herdists/Groupists/Socialists/Communists/Statists...

oh, Hell, all the flotsam bobbing adrift in poor abused Hegel's wreckage-- off? Is that it? Is it necessary to face the poster child of 'a mob' with...'a bigger mob,' or is it the very idea of 'a mob' itself which needs to be confronted with a better idea?

Oh, Hell, why fight it, now I'm going to start a club.  How hard can it be? There are surely more of them then there are people in the world. Admission in this latest is very exclusive, to join, one must never seek to join, to hide in the cut, to seek the not so great 'average' just waiting for all of us inside of every mob.    Excuse me, I have a lot of indoctrination and training and instruction and marshalling and re-alignment of skins not my own that I don't have to do in this latest club. Don't wait for your membership card, you are disqualified as soon as you ask to join. OTOH, if you don't want to join, then welcome, human being, you are automatically a life member. Don't worry, there are no dues, other than the very hardest: be yourself.

regards,
Fred

Post 41

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 7:07pm

The breakdown between intent and result may be a consequence of inadequate technology.

Most objectivists probably read AS as teenagers or college students, and were of a mentality of rarified intellectuallity that begged for silly apellations like "Randroid" when they attempted to directly apply the principles to dailly life. Those I've met who read AS in their 40's or later had usually already acquired enough perspective to avoid doing anything really silly, and generally seen to have done a better job of integrating the principles into their lives.

This is not a fault of Rand or AS. Young people are (relatively) ignorant and (relatively) foolish. It goes with the territory. I cringe to think of some of the things I did centuries ago.

It might have been helpful if someone had noticed the problem and set out to solve it via some social technology, like a Roberts Rules of Order as to rational social etequite that was aimed at the hyperintellectual young person who will predictably do stupid things on the basis of misapplied principles and otherwise make life hell for those people who regularly deal with him or her.

I recall that the late Sam Konkin, far from being an objectivist but a stong libertarian, took the position that since he had not signed any contract NOT to talk in the movie theater, then he was under no moral obligation not to do a running commentary of a playing movie. Imagine how many people were converted to libertarianism by this behavior...

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 6/13, 7:08pm)

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 6/13, 7:09pm)

Post 42

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 11:40pm

> the late Sam Konkin...took the position that since he had not signed any contract NOT to talk in the movie theater, then he was under no moral obligation not to do a running commentary of a playing movie. Imagine how many people were converted to libertarianism by this behavior... [Phil O]

Being a person of enormous civility and benevolence, if he had done that while I was trying to watch a movie, I would first have politely asked him to stop doing that.

Before figuring out where he is sitting and going over and systematically beating the living crap out of him.

Imagine the thoughts the considerations that might go through his head in weighing whether he would do that again the next trip for a night out at the movies.

(Only half kidding).

Post 43

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 9:11am

With reference to Phil's latest post, every movement will attract kooks. What's disturbing about Konkin is that he had acquired an iconic status among libertarians.

I don't know how true it is, but someone told me that Nathaniel Branden found an Objectivist groupie tucked away in the trunk of his car. I believe it. Years ago, an Objectivist woman I was dating invited me to her apartment for the evening. We had a quiet dinner and we're getting intimate on the couch, when I noticed someone else's hand on the coffee table. It was a surrealistic moment, since there were only two of us in the apartment, or so I thought. Suddenly, a jealous ex-boyfriend (also an Objectivist) jumped up from behind the couch and began to berate her for dating me. He apparently had a key to her apartment and had let himself in to spy on her.

I can recall the first time I went to an Objectivist lecture back in 1963 at the Sheraton Palace Hotel in San Francisco. I walked up to the entrance table to pay my fee for the lecture, and was greeted by the angriest woman I'd ever met. The vibes this malcontent was putting out were chilling. I thought, well, okay, she's not very pleasant, but then she has a right not to be pleasant. And with that reassuring thought, I paid my fee and entered the lecture. My introduction to Objectivism.

Another time at an Objectivist conference in San Diego, I asked Peter Schwartz a question, which he attempted (I think unsuccessfully) to answer. During the break, when I was standing in the court yard, Harry Binswanger gave me what can only be described as a peremptory command, which he shouted at me from a distance of 50 feet. "COME OVER HERE! I WANT TO TALK TO YOU!!! Jesus, what did I do?? Are they going to kick me out for asking that question?

Well, as it turned out, Binswanger simply wanted to set me straight, after he'd got the definitive answer to my question from Peikoff. Evidently, Schwartz hadn't answered it correctly. But where were Binswanger's manners?? You don't order someone to approach you, just because you'd like to talk to them, especially not someone who's paid money to attend your conference.

I'd say that Objectivists need to work on their PR, but more importantly, they need to learn some manners and to show some common decency and respect towards the people they're seeking to influence. That, as much as anything else, would help their outreach efforts -- if they really are interested in reaching a wider audience.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/14, 11:29am)

Post 44

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 9:41am

Bill,

That's a terrific post. A good dose of manners is not only important in growing the Objectivist movement, it's important for Objectivists' success in their daily lives. Many Objectivists should also work on their paranoia and impulse to try to control people through social pressure. Those things are a turnoff to the best people in the movement.

Jim

Post 45

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 2:06pm

Philip Coates wrote about "The need for systematic training and educating of Objectivists, and how to do it."

We are all individualists in this club. Here is the President, the Grand Egomaniac and here is the treasurer, the Guardian of the Golden Sparks of Knowledge, and this is the secretary, the Exaulted Editor and Publisher. I am your mentor. You may call me Mentor. You will sit here, in the back of the room and take this quiz. As you do better on the tests, you will get to move toward the front where the real discussions are. You can ask questions, of course. As your Mentor, I am here to help. However, my best advice is to ask me which questions you can ask. See them over there? (Points to sorry lot of dummkopfs roped off in a corner.) Those are the dissenters. We tolerate them because we are open minded. (Dissenter asks, "Can we leave now?" Mentor ignores him.) Oh, I have to go, but you read this and fill out the quiz at the back -- Question 12 is a trick question. Don't answer True or False, but put an asterisk and on the back explain why lifeboat situations are not metaphysicallly normal. I'll see you on the break.

That Phil, what a sense of humor...

OK! Everyone who agrees with Phil, join him.
Everyone who still has a mind, do whatever you want.

(Robert Malcom: nice post; thanks!)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/14, 2:07pm)

Post 46

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 12:36pm

Bill, that was hilarious. Serves you right for dating Objectivists! I find it's better to befriend non-Objectivists who are reason-, happiness- and freedom-oriented, and then work on them afterwords. Every soi-disant Objectivist I've been introduced to as a blind date has been a disaster.

As for Binswanger, I attended an ARI event at the University of Pennsylvania in the late 80's, my first formal event. He managed to gratuitously insult both me and my brother-in-law.

Ted

Post 47

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 2:12pm

Bill:

I don't know how true it is, but someone told me that Nathaniel Branden found an Objectivist groupie tucked away in the trunk of his car. I believe it. Years ago, an Objectivist woman I was dating invited me to her apartment for the evening. We had a quiet dinner and we're getting intimate on the couch, when I noticed someone else's hand on the coffee table. It was a surrealistic moment, since there were only two of us in the apartment, or so I thought. Suddenly, a jealous ex-boyfriend (also an Objectivist) jumped up from behind the couch and began to berate her for dating me. He apparently had a key to her apartment and had let himself in to spy on her.

Well, this is a cliff-hanger for me. Did you or didn't you? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) Us guys gotta know.

Sam
(Edited by Sam Erica on 6/15, 2:13pm)

Post 48

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 2:37pm

Try this for the 3 essentials:
Objectivism is
1) epistemologically-oriented to reason;
2) metaphysically atheistic;
3) in ethics, egoistic.

Post 49

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 3:17pm

Nope, not yet :-).

Hints: (i) It should be something which directly serves as an impediment, a barrier to Objectivism sweeping the culture. (ii) The three words are short ones and ones -any- eighth-grader would understand fully...actually probably earlier in elementary.

Post 50

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 3:31pm

Objectivism is "nasty, brutish, and short".

Post 51

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 4:06pm

--The Maladjust or Anti-Model or Kook--

> every movement will attract kooks. What's disturbing about Konkin is that he had acquired an iconic status among libertarians...to pay my fee for the lecture..the angriest woman I'd ever met...My introduction to Objectivism... [Bill]
> As for Binswanger, I attended an ARI event at the University of Pennsylvania in the late 80's, my first formal event. He managed to gratuitously insult both me and my brother-in-law. [Ted]

Bill and Ted, my original post didn't cover all the reasons for forty years of decline (or for at least stagnation or very slow acceptance if you don't agree with my 'extreme' thesis at the start of this thread). But this is definitely one of them:

The anti-role model factor.

Interestingly enough my own very first contact with an Objectivist [I'll start a separate thread on this!] was, like Bill's, similarly a dousing with cold water, negative, and somewhat shocking: My Senior year at Brown, I started an Ayn Rand Club. The very first person who responded was a sophomore, I don't remember his name. He had read everything. And one of the early sentences I remember, since it seemed so anti-contextual was "I would never let a priest into my house." He didn't mean it in the sense of those people who knock on doors, but under any circumstances.

Wow.

Reasons why so many Oists are so disinterested / unaware /contemptuous of social skills, persuasion skills, personal restraint or "personality hygiene"?

Or such an intrinsicist unawareness of human nature or an immature unawareness of human variation? (As in the case of the example I gave from my college years.)

In many another movement, these people would be much more rare and extreme cases than in Objectivism and libertarianism. They would have been cold-shouldered, run off, berated, considered as loose cannons to be viewed with a great deal more contempt or shock than they have been.

But in Objectivism, while they are not a majority, they are -- very unfortunately -- more "mainstream".

To the point that everyone who has met a lot of self-styled Oists has met them. [If you live in an isolated area geographically or are new to the philosophy and haven't met them in the flesh, you probably have online. Just reflect back on some of the more extreme posts on some of these websites.]

Reasons for this are a combination of: (i) they think their behavior is justified, (ii) rand did it or defended it or something they take as similar, (iii) they think one of the 'essentialized' novel characters in terms is a license for their actions, (iv) "great minds" or "noble souls" get to have their own rules, (v) they don't care about people, (vi) they take the easy course in what they think is egoism, which is a form of nietzscheanism or self-indulgent immaturity, doing whatever one feels like.

Phil

(This should almost be another thread but I don't have the energy for something this depressing - I apologize for the somewhat unedited or stream of consciousness nature of this post or rant.)

Post 52

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 7:03pm

"Cold, dead & buried" were also the first three words I thought of once you said they were short, but I don't quite feel that's an appropriate description, so I didn't post it. But you have left us hanging Phil. So what's the answer? BTW, since I have promised not to post on SOLOP until I read Valliant, and I have so far found that an impossible task, I ask that you answer the riddle here.

Ted

Post 53

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 7:08pm

Valliant is anything but......

Post 54

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 7:44pm

Did you pass out, Robert?

Oh, I think you may have meant:

"Valliant is anything but."

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 6/16, 7:46pm)

Post 55

Sunday, June 17, 2007 - 4:09am

Ted:

Cold, dead & buried" were also the first three words I thought of once you said they were short, but I don't quite feel that's an appropriate description, so I didn't post it.

I don't think it is anywhere near an appropriate description, and I posted it after posing a question and assuming the answer to it as a conditional. Is Objectivism a failure because it has not 'mobbed up?' Do "Objectivists" today 'count heads' to seek validity, do they 'herd-up' to measure success? If so, then...

Some might well ask 'What can Brown do for you?" Others ask, "What has Brown done to others in the past?"

regards,
Fred

Post 56

Sunday, June 17, 2007 - 6:52am

Others ask, "What has Brown done to others in the past?"

yep - that's why there's Fed-Ex.....

Post 57

Sunday, June 17, 2007 - 6:12pm

> But you have left us hanging Phil. So what's the answer? ... I ask that you answer the riddle here.

I will. Patience, Ted. Surprisingly enough I have a life outside of posting on websites :-)

Post 58

Monday, June 18, 2007 - 7:09am

robert:

yep - that's why there's Fed-Ex.....

Did you ever notice the little arrow between the 'E' and the 'x' in the Fed-Ex logo? It borders on subliminal, and yet...it's right there. It's one of the cleverest logos ever.

regards,
Fred

Post 59

Monday, June 18, 2007 - 9:00am