RoR: Forum

Steve:

I have no trouble acknowledging the existence of pure thought/hypotheticals that exist only as intellectual concepts, not real objects or entities. I think of them as uninstantiable abstractions. Blueprints for behavior that either may not or can not or have not been built in this universe. Existing as definitions only, not declared or instanced.

An example is a counter example to our matter-dominated universe; a sister anti-matter dominated universe, separated at birth. A purely hypothetical that for me is far less fantastic than the idea of something from nothing.

Two universes -- one dominated by matter, and the other dominstaed by anti-matter -- is the cosmic equivalent of the following conservation:

0=0 State 1

A + -A = 0 State 2

where
e
A!=0 and -A!=0

Two for the price of none.

The alternative explanation is a paradox:

0=0 State 1

A!=0 State 2

where A!=0

Where did the single A come from without violating continuity/conservation?

When we dig a hole and create a pile of dirt, we get two things where there were none: a positive pile of dirt and a negative hole. So it is with matter and anti-matter from energy and anti-energy, where both are related by delta E = delta M c^2. If there is anti-matter, there is anti-energy.

Why is there no evidence of -A? Because there can't be. In the early moments of birth, a statistically finite possibility of a net matter region in close proximity to a net anti-matter region would result in enormous release of energy, propelling both reqions away from each other at the speed of light. Not only can't each region have knowledge of the other, each region may not have intimate knowledge of the other, or they would destroy each other.

A totally unprovable abstract idea; it exists, but cannot be instantiated or substantiated, by definition.

Agnostics have a bit bucket for such things; the 'don't know because by definition we can't know' bucket.

Rational atheist? In a heartbeat. Changing between non-existing churches is painless.

If you lived in the 1200s, Einstein's ideas did not exist anywhere on earth yet. They came into existence, and became knowledge and we not only acknowledge those ideas as real enough, but some of our peers have changed the objective world based on those ideas. In the 1200s, without knowing of the existence of those future ideas, would it have been irrational to acknowledge the concept of someday there being new ideas and knowledge presently not in existence?

I can readily acknowledge that all that will be known about the universe tomorrow does not exist today. But for now, all I can rationally say about that future set of knowledge is "I don't know what it is today."

By definition. Though I have an irrational faith that it will arrive someday.

God? God doesn't have to be a Magic Unicorn, spaghetti monster or any imagined being willing to jump through hoops. God the Creator could simply be the universe, as it is. God enough? Too much God? Ha! Who would argue more strenuously (and more futily, an agnostic would add:) the theist defending his God, or the atheist defending his Godless universe?

Both would whip out their God hoops. See? This God doesn't jump through our hoops; therefore, say the merely created, this God can't be God. They'd be in full agreement. You see, the God that jumps through Hoops must have this list of characteristics:

1] Must be willing to jump through manmade hoops.
2] Hoops, as in, having characteristics defined by the merely created, and writable as a numbered list...
3]....

Theists and atheists alike always skip those first two characteristics when defining their hoops...

Agnostics laugh at the idea of Gods that jump through hoops, no matter who offers them up, and say, on a concept defined as undefinable, "by definition I'm not permitted to know, and so I don't, and don't worry about it."

regards,
Fred

Post 21

Tuesday, March 5, 2013 - 4:31am

The third possibility is no beginning:

A=A state 0

A=A state 1

The Big Bang as the Big Bounce.

Far less fantastic than two for the price of none, and especially far less fantastic than one for free.

Also far less fantastic than A from nothing, and violating no conservative laws.

But until proven, it is an act of faith to 'believe' in any one of them, no matter how fantastic.

A + -A = 0 is equivalent to both 0=0 and A=A and each can be arrived at via conservation laws. They require only physics.

0=0 and A!=0 are not states that can be arrived at via conservation laws. It requires magic. It's a fact of our existence that we live in a tribe that believes mostly in magic.

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 3/05, 4:37am)

Post 22

Tuesday, March 5, 2013 - 5:03am

meanwhile... back at the actual discussion topic ...

Were you alone in your discovery? I said that a friend handed me Anthem. High school is all about cliques one way or another; and our schools were relatively large, 2500 and up. We had plenty of each type, whatever those were. So, my girl friend read the books, and some of her friends already had. We had quite a cabal going. That made it possible to discuss the books. Also, getting social reflection can be important, especially for a teenager.

Also, that year, after subscribing to The Objectivist Newsletter, I received notice of a Basic Principles course. I went alone to that and was the youngest in the room. The only other person close was a college student picking up some missed lectures when he was home on his breaks. Mostly, everyone was older than my parents.

I did take a couple of guests. girls not my girlfriend who could go out on a school night. One was exceptionally smart - a whole head taller than I; Cleveland Public Schools "major work" program and all that. I took notes, of course. She started an outline. On the break, I told her that I was impressed. She tisked that she assumed that Branden was working from outline, certainly hoped he was or she was wasting her time being there. That was quite a challenge, but apparently, Nathaniel Branden actually was as smart as Barbara Burgess.

Post 23

Monday, March 11, 2013 - 10:23am

It is true that what initially attracted me to Objectivism was the emphasis on reason as a means to knowledge. That, and the fact that the ethics were very similar to what I practiced then, back in 1981. I was 19 when I first discovered Rand. I went to a bookstore at a mall and a book title caught my eye: "The Virtue of Selfishness." At the time, I found the title to be outrageous. I was still a church-goer then, and surely selfishness was bad. I bought the book and read it in a day. I was hooked then and proceeded to buy most of Rand's other books and read them in short order.

Yes, I still remember it well.

Post 24

Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 8:44pm

Michael,

Were you alone in your discovery?

Who are you talking to?

Ronald,

I went to a bookstore at a mall and a book title caught my eye: "The Virtue of Selfishness." At the time, I found the title to be outrageous. I was still a church-goer then, and surely selfishness was bad. I bought the book and read it in a day.

I often wonder at the role Rand's titles played in getting her ideas out there. Her provocative titles and ideas (and her fiery attitude) likely did wonders to both spread the ideas and create venemous opposition to them (i.e. Virtue of Selfishness).

Undoubtedly, the novelty of the ideas (from my perspective) and her passionate defense of them served to increase my interest in them.

Post 25

Friday, March 29, 2013 - 7:58am

Kyle, it was a general question, addressed to the readers and writers. In my case, in particular, I had a social group in high school that knew Ayn Rand's works. Not everyone accepted everything - atheism, just, for instance - but they pretty much knew the works and enjoyed them. That was helpful to me.

Most of us seem to have come to Objectivism in isolation. I think that that is also significant. We can argue nature/nurture/volition all day, but I see many (though not all) Objectivists as "genetic" or "inherent" or "natural" individualists, statistical outliers. In sociobiology, they speak often alphas (leaders) and betas (followers). You hear of the "alpha male" in the office.

But other labels also apply, the "gamma" is a social wanderer. In sociobiology,t he gamma prevents inbreeding by going from gene pool to gene pool, mating with others on the periphery, occassionally getting to the females of the alpha male (or males of the female).

Chicks love rogues.

And some gammas are females too, of course.

And then there are "omegas" total outcasts who do not mate.

And it applies, also, to females...

Post 26

Friday, March 29, 2013 - 10:20am

Michael,

Thanks for clearing that up. Also, interesting post. In regard to alphas, betas, gammas, and omegas, which do you think most Objectivists are?

Post 27

Friday, March 29, 2013 - 3:30pm

Most Objectivists, in my experience, we never much into the fraternity/sorority scene.

Post 28

Sunday, March 31, 2013 - 9:36am

Kyle, I agree with Peter, generally and just intuitively, but I am cautious.

For one thing, we all want to believe that we are right-out-of-the-books Randian heroes. So, confirmation bias is a real danger.

It would take an empirical experiment with a few thousand volunteers. I never remember the numbers exactly but you need like 1,054 samples to be 95% confident plus or minus 3%. You would need a control group and then your test subject group(s). What are you going to measure, and how? You could just ask True/False, but you would need a validated instrument (study or questionnaire) for "individualism."

What do you mean by "most Objectivists?" I would limit it to self-identified Objectivists. Millions have read Atlas Shrugged, etc., but whether and to what extent they are "natural born individiualists" is questionable. As for "most of the ones I know" that is a difficult question because of them, I only knew a few well enough to typify.

I think that a taxonomy of Objectivists might be more complicated, depending on what you decide is an important variable. We had a discussion here about the Myer-Briggs/Kiersey type identifiers. I accept them broadly, but some people here reject them entirely as being no more accurate than Jean Dixon's or Sidney Omar's Daily Horoscopes -- and with about the same scientific validity. On the MBTI, my "introvert/extrovert" scores are very close. I belong to clubs, easily. I am often elected to office. Weak leader? Strong follower? Accomplished gamma? I hesitate to guess.

About 1975 or so, I had a little meet-up of local Objectivists and a guy a generation older showed up. (He looked like an FBI guy. We thought we were busted.) He said that he came to Rand's works via The Fountainhead and was happy to have Atlas Shrugged and the rest follow eventually. He said that when he read The Fountainhead, "It was what I always believed." I accept that this is generally true of many (perhaps most) Objectivists. The narrative just makes perfect sense and little argumentation is necessary.

Realize, also, that Americans are a self-selected culture. We descend (or we are) people who left everything and everyone behind: no attachments. So, "genetic" individualism is pretty strong, even among collectivists. In fact, I know quite a few commies who are more "individualist" than some of the Objectivists I met. I do not mean pseudo-individualism, the pop scene non-conformity (though that has some validity: you don't get that in Japan, or not as easily). I mean, people with integrity in the sense that Rand meant it: living adherence to a moral code of their own creation or discovery.

On the other hand, we all know all too well that Objectivism is a culture in which obedience to authority is rewarded. Here in RoR we are not alone in people denouncing others, people put into Moderation, limited to Dissent, and so on. I understand and agree that it is a huge waste of resources to have trolls come to argue. I would not goto a Christian website and start an argument. So, I understand that we have limits.

But just recently, I said that I came to Objectivism via existentialism, and Ed Thomson just had to denounce an existentialist (Martin Heidegger). Ed came to Objectivism via socialism and religion. As far as I can tell, Ed is "in church." He belongs to a community where he is a leader by showing that he follows the norms. He is not alone. I suspect that maybe a third of self-identified Objectivists are like this, and certainly the self-made leaders of the various message boards and website. On the other hand, I think that Leonard Peikoff is a "gamma" because over the decades he has shown absolutely no inherent talent at leadership. He has a club The Dr. Leonard Peikoff Club and it is a lot like the Dr. Sheldon Cooper Club: he lets people come over to his apartment because it amuses him, but he accepts no responsibility for their actions -- but if you want to be his roommate, well, he has a long and complicated body of philosophy for you to memorize and agree with.

In The True Believer Eric Hoffer sketched the follower of a political or social cause as somone who does not fit into society at large. They are not happy with their lives and they find others to blame for their lot. They devote themselves to a larger cause to give meaning to their lives. But such movements have leaders, of necessity.

I knew a libertarian who was a captain in the USMC -- and a self-identified "gamma." At a regional meeting of correspondence writers, we asked how he could fit into such a structured and disciplined organzization. He replied that the structure and discipline was necessary because most Marines are "gammas" -- otherwise they would have joined the Army, which is for normal people.

Now, what percentage is who or what? I dunno...

Realize also, what for all of their symbolic individualism, real life people reflective of Howard Roark or Hank Rearden run real life enterprises by leadership. They belong to larger organizations - Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, ... - wherein they serve and lead. They might (we hope) lead by example, rather than with an iron fist, or a kid glove over an iron fist, but lead they do and must. They still advocate for freedom in political discussions and do so because they understand the epistemology supporting it. The fact remains that they lead and that others are attracted to follow them.

About a thousand years ago, in the 1970s, science fiction ranconteur Erwin S. "Filthy Pierre" Strauss warned his fellow libertarians against the "gamma equal superman" fallacy. People are more complicated than that. Strauss is one of the most "gamma" people I know of (never met him, actually), but he also organizes science fiction conventions. Just sayin'....

The gamma has one purpose: to move from gene pool to gene pool mating ad lib to prevent in-breeding. Humans, dolphins, sheep, rats... Maybe that's the bottom line.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/31, 10:06am)

Post 29

Sunday, March 31, 2013 - 12:12pm

Michael,

Objectivism is a culture in which obedience to authority is rewarded. Here in RoR we are not alone in people denouncing others, people put into Moderation, limited to Dissent, and so on.

I have to disagree with this. If an act or a statement is really an expression of Objectivism, it is not rewarding authority blindly, or inappropriate authority, or authority as such. And criticizing/denouncing others is by itself indicative of nothing but the expression of a negative opinion. The use of moderation or limiting someone to dissent is just the application of property rights in a rational fashion to sustain the purpose of the forum.

Are there individuals that self-identify with Objectivism but have an unhealthy attitude towards authority? Yes, but that is only by remaining blind to or dishonest about the basic principles of Objectivism that relate to individualism and freedom of association. And I would say there are many fewer people identifying with Objectivism that have an unhealthy relationship to authority than in the population at large.
-----------------

You make Ed sound like a 'true believer' - as if he didn't think for himself. That's a nasty kind of thing to imply, and yet you offer no evidence of any kind that there any is truth to it. When you say, "...where he is a leader by showing that he follows the norms" you are implying a motivation that insults Ed, and everyone here that identifies with RoR to any degree.
-----------------

The gamma has one purpose: to move from gene pool to gene pool mating ad lib to prevent in-breeding. Humans, dolphins, sheep, rats... Maybe that's the bottom line.

This is the kind of non-thinking that so much of today's pseudo-science encourages. Throwing people into made up categories, according to non-causal, often arbitrary characteristics, and then asserting that being of such a category they will behave in this or that way. People make choices. Some of those choices regard what they will believe. Some of those beliefs will form their purposes and actions. We aren't sheep or rats.

Post 30

Monday, April 1, 2013 - 6:37am

By definition, every society has norms. Science moves forward ultimately by identifying and correcting errors. But you will not go far in the lab criticizing the principal investigator who hired you.

However, science is greatly different from religion. Religion has not advanced any new truths in 2000 years. Whether Christianity was a :"new" truth compared to Buddhism, which preceded it by 500 years is arguable. In less than 500 years, science went from looking at the Moon through a telescope to standing on the Moon. Religion has not been so productive. Neither has philosophy.

Capital-O Objectivism marked a new beginning, a restatement of the Enlightenment from the point where it failed to integrate rationalism with empiricism. Science moved forward, but philosophy did not.

As I said, people are complicated and we have many models for understanding ourselves. The Myer-Briggs Personality Type Indicator is one. As the MBTI was amplified (or modified) by the Keirsey Temperment scales, we have another. According to Kiersey, Ayn Rand was a "Mastermind" an INTJ: Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judgmental. Others in that type include Ulysses S. Grant and Stephen Hawking.

On the other hand a "Guardian Inspector" is Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, and Judgemental: George Washington, George HW Bush, Harry Truman, and Martha Stewart... and Mother Theresa. It has nothing to do with being a "good" person or an "immoral" person. It is how you approach the world.

And it is not cast in stone. One reason that people here (and beyond RoR) criticize these sketches is that your score - mine certainly - will vary with your varying mood of the season or moment.

Jung suggested five "archetypes" as aspects of personality: Self, Shadow, Anima, Animus, Persona Following him, drawing on mythology as explanation, we have the 12 "Jungian" Archeypes (only arguably the work of Jung). They have been correlated to the Western Zodiac and the Phoenician Alphabet: Hero, Rebel, Caregiver, Explorer, ... They are broad descriptions, not final judgments. And you can change, perhaps entirely, given the desire. ... or so we like to claim about the power of free will.

Ayn Rand understood well (apparently) Oswald Spengler's theory of the Zeitgeist. She mentions it obliquely in both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Even after three generations of communism, the USSR still had true individualsts -- they just did not get very far because theirs was a collectiivist society. On the other hand, America is an individualist society.

Even President Obama evidences this independence of mind, which makes him difficult to label and therefore dismiss. You can find "Marxism" in his ideas and a soft spot for Islam opposite his hard line on Israel, but he is not "a Marxist" or "a Muslim." He is just Barack Obama. What would you expect from an American president? We do not elect leaders who find all of their answers in one book.

But Objectivists do find all of their answers in one book, by definition.

Myself, I find in Objectivism the best, most complete body of ideas so far based on the Enlightenment project of rational-empiricism that we easily call "the scientific method." But that project, that method, demands testing the theories and re-running the experiments, and as Rowlands pointed out so cogently, looking for falsifications.

Kyle asked my opinion. I offered a set of sweeping generalizations and anecdotes based on 45 years of socializing with Objectivists. ... but I could be wrong... It's been known to happen....

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/01, 6:58am)

Post 31

Monday, April 1, 2013 - 8:52am

All of this Myers-Briggs stuff is from Carl Jung, who also believed in alchemy, astrology, the occult, ESP, a collective unconscious and that his sister had witchly powers... stuff that I sincerely hope none of here at RoR believe in.

Some of Jung's ideas have merit, but for obvious reasons you have to pick and choose very carefully.

He divided people's approach to experiences as rational or irrational. So far that sounds good, but then he divided rational into thinking and feeling. Feeling? The irrational was divided into sensing and intuition. Is there anyone here that doesn't see this as a bit strained already? Each of these four functions, according to Jung, would be "expressed" in either an introverted or extroverted fashion. (Also, his use of the terms introverted and extroverted aren't the same as today.)

Briggs and her daughter Myers came along and take Jung's types and put them together so that we are typed as extroverted versus introverted, sensing versus intuitive, and thinking versus feeling. Then they added judging versus perception. To me, this is only the slightest bit more sensible than phrenology (describing a person's personality by feeling the shape of their noggin). It persists because it uses a trick that less than honest consultants have known about for a long time. Ask the client lots of questions, then come back with a report that tells them what they already know, but dressed up in language to make it look like an answer.

Most psychologists see MBTI as bunk. It has never stood up to normal measures of statistical validity. Most of the hype is either from laypeople who are enamored with it, or from the people who make a living producing MBTI training and materials. The use of this as a psychometric tends to obscure the fact that we do have differences in our approaches to experiences that should be examined for cause and significance - but the Myers-Briggs stuff stands there as if it were already answered - "See, you're this type. That's why you do this or that." And people have lots of fun making predictions and assertions based upon these types... not unlike astrology which is a kind of typing (us Gemini's are good at that kind of thing).

Clearly, I'm no fan of Myers-Briggs. I want to look at how a person experiences things and then work on understanding how their unique approach and reaction reflect beliefs, values, defenses, assumptions, and past experiences. There is an extraordinarily rich treasure trove of psychological information in our reactions to what is in front of us - and it is not in the the 16 strange, little types Myers and Briggs put forth. As soon as some one labels a person with one of these types they shut much of their mind to what personality traits the person really has AND WHY.

Post 32

Monday, April 1, 2013 - 8:53am

But Objectivists do find all of their answers in one book, by definition.

Michael, you should have told me this sooner. Think of all the money I could have saved from not buying all of those other books!

Post 33

Monday, April 1, 2013 - 8:11pm

It's true that Mike has gone so far as to label me a 'true believer'. It is also true that I believe -- in my heart of hearts -- that I have forgiven him for that. :-) You see, it's either true or it's a mistake -- and if it is a mistake, it is easily explained.

I was thinking recently about why it might be that none of my YouTube videos have swept the world and gone totally viral, skyrocketing me into being the supreme leader of the entire world. Now, one of the reasons might be that they are relatively unprofessional, low-budget, coffee-talkish, throw-together videos. However, dismissing all that for a moment, another reason is that some of the consumers of YouTube videos might be walking around with the personal disposition to believe that people who argue like I do, are merely "true believers" -- whose ideas ought to be dismissed outright.

After all, if I am not thinking for myself in the first place, then what expected value would there be in listening to what I have to say?

Now, please disregard the tribalism I utilized (referring to some vague "group" of people so personally flawed as to be stricken with a primitive predisposition to dismiss certain others) as an unfortunate irony here. :-) I'm just saying that there is a good possibility that tribalism is affecting the otherwise-free flow of information in the world. See recent, negative campaign ads for concrete examples. If it's true that Romney caused -- even indirectly caused! -- someone to die from cancer, then why in the world would you ever want to listen to what he has to say?

It is an existentialist skepticism that elevates trust above its proper role -- a primacy of consciousness wherein your presumption of someone's character trumps the facts about what it is that they have to say. In this limited arena of thought, you will form character judgments first, and only then look at the logic of someone's arguments (if at all). This might be the case, for example, regarding my video about how to escape fiscal catastrophe in this nation -- by lowering the sum of all taxes to less than 6%. If you are a tribalist and you witness my video, then you may say to yourself:

The only reason that he is saying this stuff about having a definite solution to fiscal catastrophe is because he is one of those Objectivists who have been snookered by Ayn Rand into believing that Capitalism is really, really good for mankind. Therefore, I can discount what it is that he has to say (even if it is logically rock-solid and all-around "weather-proof" against all rival arguments).

My retort is two-fold:

1) I was arguing for mandatory taxation but, as an Objectivist, I have issues with mandatory taxation in the first place, so what I ultimately want is slightly different than what my evidence-based, scientific solution prescribes as a solution to our current fiscal mess. I am not arguing the Objectivist "party line" in the video, though it is a step closer to what I ultimately want -- so you could still say that I'm engaging in some kind of an Overton-Window, bargaining scam ...

2) ... but the truth of the matter is that the science and its application which I shared in the video will simply not ever come from someone on the other side of the issue. The only way for people to learn about how science prescribes a low rate of taxation for mankind, is from someone who is willing to share that message with others. You would never see, for instance, some interventionist fascist communicating that science which indicates that his power to tax should be reduced. You would never see someone who is in collusion with her -- by deliberation or via threatening compulsion or shakedown -- communicating the science indicating that low taxes are necessarily good. The only way that you will ever find out about this science is from someone who is willing to share the message.

Therefore, if you don't listen to evidence-based logic about a solution because of your pre-conceived character-judgment, then you are in a catch-22 (you will never become aware of the scientific findings).

Ed
[someone who often listens to NPR, the "opposition", despite the collectivism that is rampant there -- because there is still truth to be found from your ideological opponents; and dismissing them because they are not "like me" would be childish.]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/01, 8:20pm)

Post 34

Monday, April 1, 2013 - 8:41pm

A quicker way to sum it up might be like this:

If you can't or won't think for yourself, then you are forced to rely on your subjective impressions about the character or motives of various speakers on various subjects:

I like him, so I am going to blindly believe in what it is that he has to say (about the "economy"; about the terrible "others"; about our faultless "situation"; or whatever). Also, I don't like the other guy, so I either won't believe him, or I will not ever listen to him in the first place.

If you can or will think for yourself, then you can go so far as to engage in an actual, logical and empirical evaluation of what it is that they have to say. You may even go so far as to enter into dialogue with them. People have 2 choices:

1) argumentum ad hominem
2) reason

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/01, 8:46pm)

Post 35

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 - 7:09am

24 votes is a small sample. As Nobel laureate Daniel Kaufmann warned in Slow Down and Think, even professionals who work with statistics have poor intuitions about the theory of probability. So far, here are the tallies on this question (ignoring zeroes).

42% Emphasis on reason as a means to knowledge 10 (Steve, Peter, Fred, Ronald)
17% Egoism in ethics 4 (Michael, Luke)
17% Heroic view of man 4 (Kyle)

8% Other (please specify) 2
4% Benevolent view of the universe 1
12% Emphasis on Capitalism/political freedom 3

Among the many problems with simple labels is that as "points" they miss the "dimensionality" of personality. For myself, I was already committed to reason because I accepted the scientific method, and the educational project in general. Rand certainly reinforced that positively; and clearly her works presented essential portraits of those who deny reason. Similarly, the heroism was important to me as a teenager. But having to make one choice, I identified the essence to me, appropriately enough, as it was egoism.

MEM: But Objectivists do find all of their answers in one book, by definition.

SW: Michael, you should have told me this sooner. Think of all the money I could have saved from not buying all of those other books!

Well, yes, but all written by the same author (or her intellectual heir).

And I have 18 of them myself, plus two more copies of Atlas, one for reading and the other on audio tape for long road trips. (The copy I inventoried among the 18 titles is a pristine 1957 paperback. Similarly, when I re-read The Fountainhead last week, I got a copy from the library because the one on my shelf is a first run book club edition.)

The only book I have on Objectivism that came from outside the Rand Collective is What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi.

In another topic here, I tallied up the sales as best I could and Atlas Shrugged. and The Fountainhead outsell all of the others combined. It seems that for all the millions who read them, few really delve into the technical philosophy. VOS only sold 1.0 to 1.5 million, for instance. We can assume that VOS seldom sells alone, though it must occasionally, but is purchased by those who read the fiction first.

I also found the low sales of Anthem curious, and perhaps unreliable. It was my introduction. Also, I know that the book is assigned reading in some schools. When I taught middle school in Albuquerque (2002-2003), I saw stacks of them (also Animal Farm, Call of the Wild) coming and going from storerooms and classrooms. So, Anthem seems to be something of a staple. Of course, each purchase counts only once and so actual readership is greatly under-reported.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/03, 7:12am)

Post 36

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 - 9:32am