Cometmaker

Activism and Alternatives

40 posts in this topic

Are you literally stating that Objectivism had produced no great men?

Notice the context of his statement: right when Atlas Shrugged was published. This states nothing of the subsequent decades, nor does it make any invalidation of the great people who have come about as a result of AS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you implying that it is wrong to offer one's evaluation of a statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you implying that it is wrong to offer one's evaluation of a statement?

Of course not. What I'm wanting is an explanation of this

Too many people have taken the 'average road' even right when Atlas was published; I seem to remember reading how unhappy AR was that no great men approached her or came about as a result of her work.

because I think great men have come about as a result of her work. If he literally meant that no great men have been produced by Objectivism, that would be a very offensive and erroneous statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading the context of your posts, I see it is necessary to once again state that this was not at all what I stated, and that is not my position. In fact and especially after my elaboration, it is not possible to make this statement truthfully, indicating that not only am I not fighting, but that I am "not capable of it".

Perhaps when you have done even a quarter of what I have to: 1. fight irrational laws which would limit the creativity and productivity of Americans 2. work with International Baccalaureate (diploma programme) schools to maintain fiction and non-fiction works of Ayn Rand in flagship school libraries, which will eventually mean standardization in maintaining Miss Rand's works in every school where the IB Diploma Programme is available.

If you're not going to make factual references to the "intensely personal and precious reasons" I did state in favour of fighting and inquiring how others fighting are averting psychological distortion, then at least please let us know at such time when you can make the claim in relative terms that "I" am "not capable of [fighting]". (Emphasis mine.)

I did not mean anything offensive at all. Perhaps I've misunderstood your original post; and I certainly hadn't intended to impugn on any of your capacity, or ability (as I've stated). I've perceived this thread to be about the distinction available to every Objectvist -- to recede in some way (which may be often justified) or to make an effort to make the ideas powerfully felt, and spread, the course which I'm strongly in favor of. Others in this thread before me have taken you, with your achievements and with no disrespect to you at all, to be somewhat in favor of the former approach, and, if that's not an accurate perception of your viewpoint then there's simply been a miscommunication and I'm sorry once again. I thought that's what this thread was all about.

Too many people have taken the 'average road' even right when Atlas was published; I seem to remember reading how unhappy AR was that no great men approached her or came about as a result of her work.
Are you literally stating that Objectivism had produced no great men?

I don't think I need to deign your views with a response. It's a private matter, and feel free to address any future comments to PMs instead, where they'll be summarily ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ewv, the decision to withdraw or fight belongs in the spirit of each person who has to decide it. It's not a moral duty, and many people have chosen withdrawal from the world long prior to Atlas Shrugged, and many people will (hopefully) still choose to fight after it's been published.

No one said there is a "duty" to do anything. See Ayn Rand's "Causality Versus Duty" in Philosophy: Who Needs It.

I don't think that it was FC's purpose to say that you proposed a duty. He was merely pointing out a fact. Why would he need to read something with which he agrees?

Because he addressed it to me as if I (or anyone else) had intended that, and because he used the term by applying it only to this specific case as if it could mean something legitimate in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too many people have taken the 'average road' even right when Atlas was published; I seem to remember reading how unhappy AR was that no great men approached her or came about as a result of her work.
Are you literally stating that Objectivism had produced no great men?

I don't think I need to deign your views with a response. It's a private matter, and feel free to address any future comments to PMs instead, where they'll be summarily ignored.

It's really a simple question; why won't you answer it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too many people have taken the 'average road' even right when Atlas was published; I seem to remember reading how unhappy AR was that no great men approached her or came about as a result of her work.
Are you literally stating that Objectivism had produced no great men?

I don't think I need to deign your views with a response. It's a private matter, and feel free to address any future comments to PMs instead, where they'll be summarily ignored.

It's really a simple question; why won't you answer it?

There seems to be a lot of misunderstandings among the participants in this thread and I was tempted to delete a few posts along the way. Instead, I'll recommend that people participating simply state what their own opinion is and ask others what their views are instead of making assumptions.

Just to practice what I preach, I'd like to ask FC why he mentioned AR's unhappiness then and what his own view about it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's really a simple question; why won't you answer it?

It's not the statement I'm not answering. Future comments to PMs, please.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstandings among the participants in this thread and I was tempted to delete a few posts along the way. Instead, I'll recommend that people participating simply state what their own opinion is and ask others what their views are instead of making assumptions.

Just to practice what I preach, I'd like to ask FC why he mentioned AR's unhappiness then and what his own view about it is now.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstandings among the participants in this thread and I was tempted to delete a few posts along the way. Instead, I'll recommend that people participating simply state what their own opinion is and ask others what their views are instead of making assumptions.

Just to practice what I preach, I'd like to ask FC why he mentioned AR's unhappiness then and what his own view about it is now.

Oh, simply to say that I think the 'recede' option has loomed large, and I think still does. Atlas is a powerful influence in that regard; I know that when I was reading it and for some time after, I took the 'strike' possibility extremely seriously. Over the years I've seen a lot of people on various Objectivist forums openly advocate or deliberate over the possibilty of striking, while, I don't know I personally have not seen the opposite possibility be as persuasive, to the effect of powerfully making ideas felt in the larger culture, discussing what would be needed for that. I may be wrong but I think AR would have loved to have seen some sort of a Titan for right ideas, traveling the country, with a booming voice and irrefutable points, as Statesmen used to be like in the old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's really a simple question; why won't you answer it?

It's not the statement I'm not answering. Future comments to PMs, please.

But you still decline to state whether great men have come from Objectivism or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Activism can be fun

The effort to change a culture is not about trying to "stop the suffering" any more than it is to "stop destruction." As Ayn Rand said, 'abstaining from destruction will never produce any building.' And, "stopping suffering" will never produce values. Suffering is not a life primary. 'Negating a negative produces a zero, an absence, not a value.'

The goal of life is to achieve values and to make more values possible.

These posts give the appearance of some people who are demoralized, discouraged and despondent. That leads to "burn-out." Years ago I posted to OSG about the causes for unnecessary burn-out: fighting the wrong battle, losing, and trying harder.

Too many people accept the premise that success "is not possible in your lifetime." [i disagree.] They accept the premise that there is no chance for success, therefore, no value is possible, and so no action is possible or practical. The abstraction 'that if you fight for it you live in it' can be a demoralizing rationalization if you don't know how to fight for it, or are doing the wrong thing and therefore failing. Or, if you are trying to avoid suffering instead of achieving values. Doing something for others 100 years in the future is nothing more than "sacrificing for future generations," as in Communist China.

It is actually easy to make changes in a culture. I studied my first textbook explicitly on the subject of spreading ideas and making changes in a culture more than 45 years ago, and everything I could find since. I have made changes on local, national and international levels.

One example of forcing changes in law that I can provide (an overly long LTE that grew to feature length) is too long for a post to 4ARFans.com but if anyone wants to send me their e-mail address (doctoragain89@yahoo.com) I can send them a copy, along with a PDF file of the resulting newspaper article about the changes in government policy.

Years ago I offered to explain and show others how to do the same, and even started to outline a course on the subject. But there was little interest. People were adamantly commited to "not in their lifetime." So, I have kept all the fun to myself.

My point is that it is possible to make changes and not that difficult to make changes, if you do the right thing. If you do the right thing, it is fun. Or, the other way around, If you do it for fun, you have a better chance of doing the right thing, and achieving success. Doing something for others 100 years in the future is nothing more than "sacrificing for future generations," as in Communist China.

If anyone would like a copy, email me.

Tom

doctoragain89@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, simply to say that I think the 'recede' option has loomed large, and I think still does. Atlas is a powerful influence in that regard; I know that when I was reading it and for some time after, I took the 'strike' possibility extremely seriously. Over the years I've seen a lot of people on various Objectivist forums openly advocate or deliberate over the possibilty of striking, while, I don't know I personally have not seen the opposite possibility be as persuasive, to the effect of powerfully making ideas felt in the larger culture, discussing what would be needed for that.

Isn't that what ARI does? Isn't that why people contribute millions of dollars to them every year?

I may be wrong but I think AR would have loved to have seen some sort of a Titan for right ideas, traveling the country, with a booming voice and irrefutable points, as Statesmen used to be like in the old days.

Isn't that what Yaron Brook, Andy Bernstein, Peter Schwartz, Ed Locke, John Ridpath, Tom Bowden and the dozens of other members of the ARI Speakers Bureau do? John Ridpath even has a booming voice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's really a simple question; why won't you answer it?

It's not necessarily a simple question. We don't know what many "great men" really were. Being "Objectivist" isn't socially acceptable in many circles, and it's entirely possible that there are lots of great people out there who keep their philosophy private. If that makes them "not Objectivist," then so be it, but I'm willing to grant people their privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's really a simple question; why won't you answer it?

It's not necessarily a simple question. We don't know what many "great men" really were. Being "Objectivist" isn't socially acceptable in many circles, and it's entirely possible that there are lots of great people out there who keep their philosophy private. If that makes them "not Objectivist," then so be it, but I'm willing to grant people their privacy.

How is this hard? Harry Binswanger isn't a great man? What about Betsy, Stephen, Yaron, etc.? What about the Objectivist who runs BB&T?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great or greatness is defined in many ways and some of them are;

1) being beyond average

2) markedly superior in character, quality or skill

3) mighty, intense

4) eminent, grand

5) excellent

Are these not traits that every Objectivist should be striving toward? And if we are does not that make us great?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites