Galt's Gulch
13

"My views will probably be the norm in the future, but not right now." - Ayn Rand

Posted by GaltsGulch 9 years ago to The Gulch: General
24 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

"My views will probably be the norm in the future, but not right now." - Ayn Rand

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by WilliamRThomas 9 years ago
    Intellectual history moves in unpredictable ways.

    Consider that many now think the ancient Greeks, and especially Aristotle, had every reason to reject slavery. But slavery was not rejected for more than 2000 years after Aristotle.

    Also, Aristotle gave a good defense of a rational approach to life. But the dominant thought 1000 years after his death was blind faith.

    Free-market capitalism and the values of the Englightenment only reached their first full flower and defense in the period 1775-1875.

    Should we be surprised that the people who benefit most from these developments don't understand them, take them granted, and still embrace ideals that have their origin in the pre-modern era?

    Objectivism is a philosophy for people who know there is only this life to deal with, and who are willing to be consistent and committed, and who understand what capitalism really is. It may be some time until these ideals are widely shared, and I say this despite spending my life trying to spread them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
      Still isn't and it's common throughout the world. Human trafficking for example has as one of it's major supporters the US Government. Along with their supporter of sexism, racism, and bigotry.

      Anyone want to take that bet and the list of everyday examples....

      It's a trap you will lose.

      Free market capitalism as we usually say had never been free. but it should be

      I gave you the third thumbs by the way
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years ago
    I was looking up a quote I had read on India and Objectivism and I came across this article:
    http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2005/08/2...

    And here is another good one:
    https://indiancapitalism.wordpress.co...

    The remark that I was looking for was to the effect that 'India has survived Socialism and it doesn't look as attractive any more to us.'. I do not seem to find it right now, but I do think that our very prosperity is working against us. People do not know how bad things would be were the US socialist.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
      the first one seem rife with the India version of both racism and blaming western philosophy for india's current successes. the major one being outsourcing work to India. Nehru's economic model was a copy of something called State Economics... so read in those lines carefully

      the second cite gives a rather good read on what they are doing ...to put India as the second most populated nation in to economic perspective with the rest of the world...using Capitalism as an economic tool and something else as a cultural tool.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
      That's what happens when are exposed only to propaganda.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ jlc 9 years ago
        Which is the situation that we are dealing with now in the US. We have to figure out how we can dig our society out of the hole of 'liberal education' and 'liberal press'.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
          it starts with changing the mood of the body politic. and it looks like that may be happening..
          it continued with putting the left on the run....
          and then a niche, a wedge, a nudge and finally back on track.

          As for them...one way tickets to north korea
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years ago
    Socialism gets a free and unaccountable ride now. It needs to be shown for what it is and what its performance actually is. Venezuela is the end game of socialism and it should be shown over and over again so people can see what happens.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years ago
    We see that today. It will take the collapse of socialism on a grand and inexcapable scale to encourage people to rethink their premises and abandon it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years ago
    I've been thinking about this in the context of the "Open Objectivism" discussions we've been enjoying. With the discussion of whether to speak at libertarian meetings or not the issue of how broadly Objectivist views are spread and how much distortion in those views is tolerated comes to mind. The average person does not have a coherent formal philosophy in their mind but a collection of ideas that they use to get by while thinking of the latest pop culture news. If you want to have an objectivist influence on this clutter you are going to have to accept some lack of fidelity.

    My company was once presenting to sales reps for a national distributor at their annual meeting. They were going to come to our table in groups of 5-6 for a half-hour talk. At the end of the half hour, they would move to the next table and we would get a new group.

    Prior to the first group, I told our presenters that with such a busy day, that we should probably focus on only three things that we wanted them to remember. After the first two groups, I changed that to "Let's see if we can make sure they remember us at all".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by ewv 9 years ago
      Objectivism is a philosophy with radical new positions on the major issues of all the branches. It isn't "open" to be whatever some one wants it to be and can't be spread by trying to make it more 'acceptable' through watering it down, telling people they are "Objectivist" for conventional beliefs they already hold and which Ayn Rand rejected. This is not about whether or not to "speak at libertarian meetings". People can be influenced for the better in different realms without misrepresentation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years ago
        I thought the actual issue was that speaking about objectivism at a libertarian organization was somehow considered endorsing libertarianism by being in the same room.

        If you only talk to people who agree with you, you are not going to have a wide influence.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years ago
          No, one of the controversies was an implied sanction of antagonistic views by people very hostile to Ayn Rand. The libertarian radical anarchists then were not what we normally see as libertarians today. At the time there was practically open warfare. Today what is called "libertarianism" is just one aspect of the tea party movement.

          But the "open" Objectivism issue pertains to what is portrayed as Objectivism, not who you are in the room with. "Objectivism" is the name given by Ayn Rand to her philosophy, not whatever others want to turn it into. Of course you have to talk to all kinds of people to spread ideas. Much of that, because circumstances don't allow it, is not about a full advocacy of Objectivism but only on certain issues. The names "Objectivism" or "Ayn Rand" need not even come up. You may recommend it, but you talk to all kinds of people every day about all kinds of things. You live and act rationally in accordance with proper principles, not become a full time proselytizer for a philosophy by name.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dwlievert 9 years ago
      "If you want to have an Objectivist influence on this clutter you are going to have to accept some lack of fidelity."

      I would argue that you must check your premise Williamshipley. If your premise is that only through a "closed" model of objectivism, can one retain "fidelity," you are endorsing "infidelity."

      Kelly's arguments are consistent with reason as one's only absolute. If true, then all logical questions become valid, all answers tentative. Fidelity to Objectivism requires it to be, as it is termed in the current vernacular, open.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years ago
    I suppose that evolutionary advancements especially where our level of awareness is concerned (meme or overall consciousness) comes as a result of the stresses of oppression.

    That's exactly what happened 3 to 5 thousand years ago when we ventured into a connection to our mind and began viewing ourselves in real time. (my integration)

    Julian Jaynes: the breakdown of the bicameral mind., (read: Brain)
    He was onto something here.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 9 years ago
    "The future" has not come yet. Still, I remember
    when Ayn Rand did not get nearly the respect she
    receives now. She was widely regarded as a nut
    when not totally ignored (or suppressed). Things
    take time. (But I get older; it's best not to be too
    impatient. Or too easily discouraged).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo