SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Thursday, October 6 - 11:27am

Link

Edit

Just today I discovered that the major writers and spokesmen at ARI will start a new quarterly journal "of culture and politics written from the perspective that man’s life on earth is the proper standard of morality." It will come out next year and be called "The Objective Standard".

There is already "The Intellectual Activist", which started under Peter Schwartz as a publication devoted largely to current events and politics and still concentrates largely on those areas. And TOC has refocused its flagship publication similarly as indicated by its name, "The New Individualist". [I haven't been reading it for as long, but Solo's publication, "The Free Radical" seems to also largely be focused on ethics and politics and how they figure in current affairs. But with more focus on the arts and culture than some other Objectivist or libertarian publications - which is an important distinction.]

These are the key Objectivism "movement" publications, whether glossy institutional magazines or a more serious journal.

Looking at Western culture outside of Objectivism, conservatism and liberalism (and, having a lower public profile - Marxism and libertarianism) are the most discussed and visible ideologies with enthusiastic adherents and spokesmen and high-profile articles and debates in the news and in the public arena.

They are basically ethical-political philosophies. (The degree of ethics and politics emphasized in the mix varies.)

Is there anything missing?

Let me give a hint: Miss Rand often pointed out that Ethics and Politics rest on more fundamental areas of knowledge and cannot survive or be argued for without them, which is why egoism and individualism have been in retreat for centuries. And what are those fundamental fields of knowledge?

Another hint: Did the original publications edited by Ayn Rand -- The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist -- have an exclusive, or even primary, focus on ethics and politics and current events?

Philip Coates
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 10/06, 11:31am)

Post 1

Thursday, October 6 - 12:12pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Coates,

Are you referring to a change in cultural trends?

First and foremost Rand posited that man is an end in himself. I just glanced over my Objectivist Newsletter, and the dominant topics of discussion are ethics, politics, and psychology.
(Edited by Donald Talton
on 10/06, 1:21pm)

Post 2

Friday, October 7 - 9:46am

Link

Edit

Don,

First, I wouldn't describe the "dominant" concerns of both the Objectivist and The Objectivist Newsletter that way. And I don't think you can can make the assessment you did by merely skimming the titles or glancing over the publication - as opposed to having read those publications in depth over a long period as I have.

But more importantly, I'm talking about the deeper areas of philosophy (and of the human sciences), mainly the ones in the title of this thread: metaphysics, epistemology, and psychology as opposed to ethics and politics. "Culture" falls somewhere in between since it can be taken to mean ethical/political criticism of rotten trends in the culture or it can mean positive aesthetic pieces or it can mean a deeper analysis which goes back to the deeper roots of philosophy (e.g., Mary Ann Sures' "Metaphysics in Marble" from the old Objectivist.)

What the old Objectivist did was go deeper than politics or even ethics characteristically... even when Rand or Branden or whoever was writing about politics.

And they were not as fixated on the most recent Supreme Court decision or baleful political trend. If Rand was going to criticize the Pope, she would do a piece on a particular encyclical and relate it to a very wide issue.

More recent Objectivist movements and publications seldom do this. With the exception of the rare piece or writer, they don't have the grandeur, the "sweep" of Ayn Rand's concerns (or perhaps her knowledge base). They don't have the breadth or fundamentality. Way too often I feel like their pieces could have been written by the Cato Institute or Reason Magazine. Or even National Review.

Objectivism is an integrated philosophy.

It has five major branches and all of them are important and have life-giving value to offer this planet.

That is its unique power and what it has to offer to the world historically.

It should not be mistaken for libertarianism and should not give short shrift to the "deep waters" of its philosophy. For example, it should not too repeatedly or too exclusively concentrate on the politico-economic issues of the day ... or even on (only the) ethical roots of those issues, as opposed to the epistemological, metaphysical, psychological roots.

There is an enormous amount of work that an be done in popular publications and even Objectivist journals on, for example, applying epistemology and much still to say on psychology independent of any political controversy of the day.

Philip Coates

PS, If I were running a publication, one of my mottos would be, "Never Miss an Opportunity to Teach Epistemology" (or make a connection to Metaphysics..or Psychology...or the History or Ideas...or Anthropology...)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 10/07, 9:55am)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 10/07, 9:57am)

Post 3

Friday, October 7 - 10:07am

Link

Edit

Mr. Coates,

Thank you for clarifying. I have not read the Objectivist, only the Objectivist Newsletter, and have not spent years on it as it is.

Interesting that you noticed that trend, and now that you point it out it is very clear.

It seems there is has been a blurring of lines, outwardly, of classical liberalism, objectivism, libertarianism. I've noticed this over at Capitalism Magazine, CATO, AEI, and Penn & Tellers Bullshit! television show. It seems that they have all started coming together as a common goal, and it seems the philosophical has taken a back seat to the political.

Post 4

Friday, October 7 - 5:42pm

Link

Edit

Don,

In their defense, to be devil's advocate for a moment, I've talked to people high up at (for example) TOC and there are a couple legitimate reason for Objectivist organizations focusing on politics and economics and ethics (for example, in a publication or in op eds or events sponsored):

1. People are -already- interested. They read about these topics in the news and know they exist. They know their lives are affected. It's not abstract, but real. There are already existing, ready-made controversies. That's why newspapers publish op-eds on the right to die or oil shortages or privatizing Amtrak or the national debt or (to go cultural) even the brain-dead state of Hollywood movies.

But not a whole hell of a lot of op-eds on psychoepistemology or the metaphysical versus the man-made or intrinsicism or thinking in principle or concretization [there goes my chance for fame and a nationally syndicated column].

The more thoughtful people, a few hundred thousand of the better-educated more intelligent or more thoughtful people in the American population, know that ethics (or lack of same, or bad values) is responsible for many of the above problems. And so they might potentially be receptive to or at least capable of understanding an Objectivist slant on these issues.

2. There is a gap or a need there for using the Objectivist form of rational egoism to clarify and explain and correct. An individualist defense, a moral perspective on all these things.

But the problem is you can't neglect the other things I mentioned in my previous posts (I won't repeat all of them here.) For example, individualism and rational egoism are unconvincing and seem outrageous and bizarre and flawed outside of the complete Objectivist system.

Ayn Rand could make metaphysics and epistemology sexy.

Branden could do the same for psychology.

Admittedly, these areas (and their application) are a harder sell and require much more skill than what ARI, TOC, and others are doing now: There is a big "HUH?? WHAZZAT?" factor when you go into these unfamiliar areas.

But you have to take the hard road and eventually the audience (albeit a smaller one) will come to you if you, over time, get sufficiently skillful at it.

Philip Coates
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 10/07, 5:49pm)

Post 5

Friday, October 7 - 6:49pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Coates,

I should probably clarify, I am not against that aforementioned blurring, rather I'm for it if it promotes change. The Objectivist school of thought is a tough sell directly, especially so considering the amount of infighting and closed-door attitudes.

Excellent and poignant. To add to your comment about Branden and psychology, he has already done so.

One more question though: why is it just the two of us in here?

Post 6

Friday, October 7 - 7:53pm

Link

Edit

> One more question though: why is it just the two of us in here?

This website / group is only a very tiny subset of the Objectivist movement (at a rough guess, one percent), considerably smaller than the big elephant and the emaciated elephant. Over time Objectivist websites and interest groups tend to self-select and seek their level. This sort of subject would have attracted a lot of interest on OWL or as an evening discussion at TOC's summer seminar. But it feels too "heavy" or esoteric or unemotional for this subgroup of the Objectivist movement. Look at the other threads, and what kinds of exchanges take place on the longest threads. The "cult" question for example.

Post 7

Friday, October 7 - 7:59pm

Link

Edit

Garn.

Over time Objectivist websites and interest groups tend to self-select and seek their level. it feels too "heavy" or esoteric or unemotional for this subgroup of the Objectivist movement. Look at the other threads, and what kinds of exchanges take place on the longest threads. The "cult" question for example.

Do tell?

Somebody should write an article about this.

Post 8

Friday, October 7 - 8:11pm

Link

Edit

Gentlemen,

I, for one, have been reading through this thread.

On the trends in Objectivist publications issue, I will state...

Uhm...

I mean...

I was thinking...

Er... I'll be back later. OK?

(yawn)

Michael

//;-)

Post 9

Friday, October 7 - 9:49pm

Link

Edit

Dear Above-the Battle Yawning Boy,

It's not about trends in Objectivist publications. If you look deeper, it's about trends in our movement and about how to change the world...and about how you can't do it with just ethics and politics.

Wake up call, Michael...rise and shine!!!

:-)

Post 10

Friday, October 7 - 10:03pm

Link

Edit

Dammit, Phil!

You know, you can be a real moralizing, condescending son of a gun -- did you know that?

================
This sort of subject would have attracted a lot of interest on OWL or as an evening discussion at TOC's summer seminar. But it feels too "heavy" or esoteric or unemotional for this subgroup of the Objectivist movement. Look at the other threads, and what kinds of exchanges take place on the longest threads. The "cult" question for example.
================

First of all, the length of a thread is not an appropriate standard to judge by. Second of all, the idea itself (example: O-ism a cult?) is just assumed -- by your synoptic self -- to have lesser or little significance.

Again, for emphasis:
================
too "heavy" or esoteric or unemotional for this subgroup
================

Phil, take a fricken' look at my 7 articles here at SOLOHQ (http://solohq.org/Articles/Author_101.shtml) -- with an average of 28 responses each, AND the most heavy, esoteric of them (Veridicality essay) grabbing the most responses. What (besides: "blank out") do you have to say about that, hmm?!

Geez Phil, take a look at my thread on Intentional Conceptualism here (http://solohq.org/Forum/GeneralForum/0170.shtml) and tell me -- yes, sit there, with a straight face, and tell me -- that that bugger is not heavy and esoteric! Jesus, you could search all day at ARI or TOC and not find something so demonstrably heavy and esoteric!

I can see your freakin' beady, condescending eyes -- as you look at SOLOists and scorn that all that it is that you are viewing is a bunch of hippies in Rand-wear. Gimme' a break, man! What in the hell are YOU doing for this great cause, besides self-righteous bickering, hmm?! I don't see you tackling epistemology with the same honest, insightful vigor that I have, here on SOLOHQ -- yet you're snubbing your nose and engaging in metaphorical, finger-pointing speculation.

Phil, have you ever thought that these threads were actually useful? Have you ever thought that there was a grand -- a truly grand -- purpose that they were serving? If folks need to vent on something, well that is because there was a real need for that. If we don't clean our closet first -- and there is no Objectivist website as concerned with it's own closet, as is SOLOHQ -- if we don't clean our closet first, by venting the issues that are real for us, then how in the hell do you expect to bring about cultural change?!

SOLOHQ is, arguably, the world's premier website for cultural change (ie. that thing that we need first, in order to effect political change).

Ed

Post 11

Friday, October 7 - 10:09pm

Link

Edit

I want to add one more point about the importance of this thread. Neither Michael nor anyone else has any obligation to follow this discussion, but this is why I find its topic more than usually important:

"The price of failure in a war of ideas is high." -- I recently read this quote somewhere. The reason for my concern is that the Objectivist movement -is- failing in the war of ideas. Rand's fiction is becoming part of the culture, but it is often for the sexy parts or the fascinating characters or for the inspiration.

Without the knowledge of how to grasp it or sustain it or integrate it or defend it, Objectivism will go right over the heads of Americans...as has been the case.

Sense of life is fragile without a complete system, an entire philosophy to defend it. And that's why I react so strongly to the tendency toward the sloughing off or downpedaling of the more fundamental branches by the post-NBI movements.

Objectivism will fall and fail without them.

And so will our prosperity and our freedoms.

Has that got anyone awake yet?

Phil

Post 12

Friday, October 7 - 10:20pm

Link

Edit

> If folks need to vent on something, well that is because there was a real need for that. [Ed T]

Actually it isn't: It's not like Objectivists tend to be timid retiring types, who have been squelched from 'venting' before. Or have been doing too little of that over the years.

> I can see your freakin' beady, condescending eyes

This is not even insulting. It's just silly.

Post 13

Friday, October 7 - 10:36pm

Link

Edit

Phil, you wrote:

If you look deeper, it's about trends in our movement and about how to change the world...and about how you can't do it with just ethics and politics.

Wake up call, Michael...rise and shine!!!

Er...

You might have noticed my articles? All except the first have been warmly received here on Solo. (And even the first generated some interesting and important discussion on family values.) Or my 2000+ posts here on Solo covering all five branches of philosophy? Including metaphysics (especially axiomatic concepts), epistemology, and esthetics?

Right now I am embroiled in a discussion on the nature of rights, which link ethics and politics, trying to get to a proper definition of them. But I usually put more time into the other areas - plus sense-of-life banter (or some real sense-of-life stomp-down drag-out nastiness, which is the least part of my output, despite being colorful).

I would say that I am awake. Just yawning about Monday morning coaches.

I have a suggestion. How about playing a little on Sunday, too? I have no problem with your analyses. I even agree with a good deal of them. But if you - and I mean you Philip Coates - do not do anything with them, all they are, well... let's just say that their value is extremely limited.

You want to change the world? Then put your helmet on and get out on the field!

You look like you have talent. Let's see what you've got.

Michael

Post 14

Friday, October 7 - 10:40pm

Link

Edit

Rick, Michael, and Ed (new participants on this thread):

Why not try to participate by saying something on the *actual topic of the thread* [see title]?

Each of you has focused on something other than the topic:

>Michael - his boredom
>Ed - his feeling of condescension (on a side point in response to a question about why people weren't participating)
>Rick - cryptic (I don't know what his point was exactly, but it doesn't seem to have been a response to my original post describing the purpose for which I started this thread).

(NOW, when someone feels condescended to, THEN the thread comes alive and they start having something to say...about their bruised feelings, ignoring the issue at hand!

So can we expect now that all sorts of people will now start posting ON THE EMOTIONAL SIDE ISSUE, and the original point will get lost?)

Post 15

Friday, October 7 - 10:46pm

Link

Edit

Dearie,

I tried to point out, albeit implicitly, that I personally was doing something about the issue of the thread. Merely discussing what others are not doing is not enough. But OK, let's talk about what you (and others) can do to change it. But let's not forget you in this "others."

I am doing my part about all this on Solo. Do you have any more ideas in that direction? You know, what can be done about the problems you are raising? Starting with you?

Michael

Post 16

Friday, October 7 - 11:05pm

Link

Edit

Sorry Coates, it's another of the many knuckle-headed things beneath my superior quality attention span. ;)

However, your insights about how SOLO culls itself were worthy of emphasis. So.

Post 17

Friday, October 7 - 11:18pm

Link

Edit

Alright Phil. So you want deep talk of metaphysics, epistemology, and pyschology? Well, look no further, I'm your sycophant, here. Here's some deep stuff -- just 'cause you asked for it ...

Metaphysics
Metaphysics means stuff that's true without human intervention (ie. the "non-Man-Made"). It means stuff that exists previous to -- and in spite of -- human will. A recent example is the metaphysical nature of individual rights. Yes, that's right, I didn't say "man-made" rights -- I said metaphysical rights. I have worked hard to extend this logic (on the Coase v Rand thread) -- give me some credit for that, will you? Maybe you have a pointer or two -- to contribute to this great cause that I'm already so demonstrably fighting here.

Epistemology
Drawing inference (from particular to general) is a key issue in epistemology, as is whether perceptions afford anything veridical. As perception is our only direct contact with reality, the opposite view (that perception isn't veridical) is patently absurd. How in the friggin' world could you claim non-veridicality of perception -- your only direct contact with reality -- and stake claim to a truer truth. On the face of it, you are saying that you know -- by some ineffable means -- that what it is that is perceived is not actually what exists. By what means did you come to this epiphany of what it is that REALLY exists, 'in spite' of our perceptions? Blank out. So much for the indirect theory of perception. Work done.

Psychology
Only 2 viable views exist, and they, themselves, may not be mutually exclusive: cognitive psychology & humanistic psychology. Cognitive psych says thoughts will lead to feelings (a point which Objectivism acknowledges). Humanistic psych says some motives/desires are better than others (a point which Objectivism acknowledges). Perhaps we need a Cognitive-Humanistic Psychology (ie. a blending of 2 previously-separated fields) in order to capture the integration of whole humans psychologically -- in the same way that Objectivism achieves this, philosophically.

There. 3 subjects, 3 profound insights. Are you happy now? Better question: Could you have gotten this far at ARI or TOC? I think not. Why not (you ask)? Because SOLOHQ is the ideological extension of a free market -- it is a free market of ideas, something ARI and (indirectly, by a centrally-enforced egalitarianism of ideas) TOC are, currently, not.

Useful insight: The best minds necessarily gravitate to the free-ist arenas. Hmph!

Ed

Post 18

Friday, October 7 - 11:42pm

Link

Edit

(Edited by Donald Talton
on 10/07, 11:45pm)

Post 19

Saturday, October 8 - 2:32am

Link

Edit

Maybe my English language skills are insufficient....
.
.
.
I give up.

Where's the Rest of Me? -- Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Psychology