I suspect that ARI and TOC hold a similar definition to culture as I presented. Peikoff in particular once used something like my definition, and it's implicit in the fact that ARI is focusing primarily on universities, which are an institution, and the publications of the universities are the prime fountainhead (forgive the pun) of the rest of culture. So I don't think I was not addressing what they mean by culture, I think it's you who are using a different definition of culture from those two groups.

And that's actually part of my plan; I began an aesthetic movement in all the fields of art to produce excellent life-affirming artworks to compete in the marketplace with the current ones. There actually is such a thing as rational pottery; although pottery isn't itself an art form, unless it has a visual depiction on it. But when it does, as it did with the Greeks, the depictions on pottery can be pro-reason, or can embody any number of other positive themes. Visual pottery is however really a dead art because the need for pottery is much smaller now than it was in the ancient world; we no longer have chamberpots, and we no longer (except rarely) store food and other goods in pots. So it's not my primary focus, but I do think it would improve culture minutely to improve the pots that people use. If a person were to make and sell these so-called rational pots they would be changing culture, *not* by changing the minds of other people, but simply by improving what culture is -- concrete information-containing objects.

(As an side, if you want to shorten my nickname, it's Rinku.)

Rink, the referent here is what ARI, TOC, and I say it is--read the first few paragraphs. We're not so much concerned with pottery as we are with the way people think.

But feel free to go fill the culture up with rational pottery.

This claims that to focus one's life around changing culture is to focus one's life around which one cannot have any control (influencing / changing the thoughts of other people). This is true only if you define culture incorrectly.

A culture is not the sum total of the beliefs and ideas and values of a civilization. A culture is more concrete than that: I would even go so far as to claim that thoughts, beliefs, and intangibale values are not a part of culture until they are expressed in some concrete form, such as a law, a tradition, a style of architecture, a poem, a song.

Using this definition, a culture is the sum total of a civilization's traditions, institutions, art, and other informational products, from periodicals to textbooks. A subculture, in turn, is the sum total of a subgroup's likewise entities. Neither is intangible. The concept "culture" and even "subculture" has a great deal of referents, it's a very abstract term, but it's still limited to specific referents.

Someone who wishes to change culture simply wishes to change these referents.

Eh, can't be any worse than being whipped with guitar strings by the real guitarists. But Coddled eggs or not, you get the mantle of Chef!

"And Dildo, I'm afraid Shayne IS our resident Prima Donna, so you'll just have to remain Dildo (I don't think Shayne aspires to *that* moniker! )."

Ok, but I'm keeping the tiara. It looks awful on him.

I'm glad we all seem to be coming from the same place, and agree that this is an important discussion to have -- perhaps one of the most important ones.

Hi Joe! You flatter me, but the real chefs would throw coddled eggs at me if I agreed. (And yes, it was Hugh Akston.)

Shayne, off topic, but there was a master chef in Galt's Gulch! Remember when Dagny goes to the diner and eats the best burger of her life? And the guy flipping burgers was in smoking the dollar sign cigarette? (I forget, was it Hugh Akston?).

Speaking of chefs, Hi Jen!

I think it *would* be a good idea to rework the piece, and I perhaps should have suggested that before posting it. It's very important NOT to buy into, or appear to be buying into, the notion that it's EITHER values OR happiness. On the other hand, I'll leave this essay up because this is a very useful discussion.

And Dildo, I'm afraid Shayne IS our resident Prima Donna, so you'll just have to remain Dildo (I don't think Shayne aspires to *that* moniker! ).

I think you're right that'd be a better way to put it (standard instead of purpose). It might be a good idea to rewrite my article and make it more technically correct.

As I think you can see I'm not trying to argue against activism or changing people's minds, but I think there's a huge peice of the picture missing, and that's indeed, the vision of Galt's Gulch.

Jennifer: I'll try not to be timid

I agree with everything you said. Certainly, one can take up writing and activism as a valid career and pursuit. What I find implausible is that every Objectivist should also want to be a professional activist, and I find it downright perverted to focus exclusively on this type of Objectivist when trying to foster Objectivism.

In Galt's Gulch is a diversity--philosopher, businessmen, doctor, judge, engineer, writer, master chef (OK so I don't recall this last character, but I'm sure they'd be there)--that is the normal range of human interests. It is the normal range for Objectivism to be applied deeply to. We don't have this now and we don't have these Objectivist organizations arguing for and more importantly, explicitly supporting this ideal.

There are exceptions. BB&T and T.J. Rodgers come to mind. But these are exceptions, and they aren't part of the vision for cultural change. I think cultural change isn't going to really even begin until Objectivists across a wide range of fields and interests have really gotten serious about using the philosophy (not just "businessmen", these aren't even ideal candidates to target in my opinion). For the mainstream, the good consequences that will result from actually using the philosophy across a wide range will ultimately be the most powerful argument for it.

Linz, I agree with Shayne on this, and think perhaps there is a semantics issue involved here -- one of approach. I did not interpret him as speaking of duty; what I understood was that by using happiness instead of values as the "carrot," the whole of the story is not explained, and thus less effective on a broad scale. Does that make sense?

Shayne, I know if I've misinterpreted, you'll be reluctant to call me on it, so just this once please put your shyness away and be frank with your opinion. You really do need to work on that "timid" thing. (And no, you can't have the name. Hand over your tiara at once.)

My own personal take on the matter is that the greatest way I can help to effect cultural change is by pursuing my own values, which by necessity affects those around me, those with whom I do business, my readers, etc. In other words, there is no larger mission but my own, and the rest is a positive by-product. However, as someone who has started an Objectivist organization, it makes sense for you to have larger cultural change as a goal -- but the root is still the same. It is simply a group of individuals working in tandem to achieve the same end.

::::donning boxing gloves, chest armor, and a small daub of lip gloss::::

Fire away.

Linz: Unlike the happiness thing (I assume we both agree with Objectivism on that and you just don't like how I put it) maybe we have a real disagreement here. Again, I think the most potent way to change the culture is to live. I think that one person generating values on a scale fitting to the Objectivist philosophy would be better than a hundred "activists".

E.g., in his "Capitalist Manifesto", Andy Bernstein gives as one of the fundamental things fueling the American revolution the ideas of Issac Newton--nowhere else was there a more profound demonstration of the power of reason--and people responded to that demonstration. Objectivism could be used to expand human understanding and command of nature in various fields--but largely, isn't. Why?

Not everyone can be Issac Newton, but the principle holds: on whatever scale is open to you, you can use the power of the philosophy to improve on your ability to pursue values--and *that* is a far better demonstration of Objectivism than any cultural criticism you can write.

Don't get me wrong--my intention here is not to decry critique or activism, or to say that one can't form legitimate careers in these areas. But if that's all Objectivism is used for, it will be an absolute shame, and history will look back on this period as the period that squandered Ayn Rand's gift.

Happiness is your purpose, your life is your standard of value, reason your method of achieving value.

You should say:
But making happiness your standard of value is a recipe for undercutting happiness, resulting in nothing but hedonism and frustration.

Helping to persuade other people to adopt rational political and philosophical views has improved my life. Why would I want to be surrounded by joyless socialists? Scale that up and you get a changed culture. Lindsay knows, he must have changed thousands of minds as a broadcaster.

On the other hand, this sounds very appealing:
An Objectivist organization should look more like Galt's Gulch...

Linz,

I of course agree that happiness is the proper moral purpose of your life. But "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values" (Ayn Rand)--i.e., it is not obtained by direct pursuit but by pursuit of specific values you must choose. Further, "neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims"--values must be rationally selected in accordance to a rational standard.

That's not rationalism, that's Objectivism.

I think I wasn't perfectly precise (happiness is of course a proper *ultimate* purpose), but I also think you missed the point, which is again, simply that happiness is obtained by value pursuit not "happiness pursuit", and that values must be rationally chosen. Of course, properly understood "happiness pursuit" IS rational value pursuit--thus I was somewhat imprecise.

I'd define hedonism as pursuing things that you felt like pursuing, because you felt like it not because you concluded it was good. This is what I meant by holding happiness as a "direct" purpose--just going after something because you are emotionally drawn to it and not rationally convinced of it.

Hopefully that clarifies what I meant.

You stole my moniker! I'm the prima donna around here!

I of course agree with the projects you mention and agree with sending big fat checks for that kind of thing, nothing in what I said was intended to contradict that (not that you implied otherwise).

Shayne - thanks for picking up the article-writing ball & running with it.

I must respectfully and emphatically disagree, however, with the content of this one.

First, I think effecting cultural change is an entirely appropriate goal for an Objectivist organisation in a non-Objectivist world. It's one of SOLO's goals just as it is ARI's & TOC's. As far as I'm concerned it's not a matter of making other people the focus of one's attention; it's working with others who share my values to help ensure an end to the status quo where those values are affronted & assaulted on a daily basis. SOLO, for instance, is a very *selfish* project for me. I want a culture that is not a daily battlefield, a culture where the values laid out in the Credo are the norm rather than the rare exception.

Second, I couldn't disagree more with this:

... making happiness a primary purpose is a recipe for undercutting happiness, resulting in nothing but hedonism and frustration. The idea that we want to "achieve happiness," that that's our goal, cannot serve as a guide to our actions. Indeed, happiness is not even a reliable barometer of whether we're doing the right things or not—just because we feel happy does not necessarily imply we're on a good course; just because we feel depressed does not necessarily mean that we're on a bad one. Proper purposes are chosen by reference to rational self-interest and real values ...

Objectivism is quite explicit that the achievement of one's own happiness is one's "highest moral purpose." Ringfencing "rational values" from the pursuit of happiness as you do here is, I'm afraid, standard intrinsicism/rationalism, a Kantian injunction to do one's duty to rationality regardless of whether it makes one happy or not. (To have happiness as one's goal is not "hedonism" - mindlessly to seek repetitive, self-destructive short-term gratification *is*. But that's not what we're talking about here.) Reason is a tool, not an end in itself - a tool for the achievement of happiness. One does not live in order to be rational; one is rational in order to live, in the fullest sense of the term.

Shayne, thank you for bringing up what has come to be a thorn in my side in much of the Oist world -- get out and do, and stop talking about it. Live by example, and show what the talk means by putting it into practice.

The pursuit of values is the primary; as you said, happiness is not always the result -- but that typically pertains to the short-term, when higher values must take precedence over short-term difficulties or unpleasantness. In the final sum, an individual's pursuit (and hopefully achievement) of his values will bring him the happiest possible state.

As a side note, I will say that there are initiatives put forth by such organizations that do make a difference, and by which I am very impressed. ARI's project to put copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in the hands of school children come to mind. When I'm able to do so, I'll be happy to send a big fat check to continue such an important endeavor.