Posted on 12/30/2003 10:29:35 AM PST by G. Stolyarov II
One of the most vexing problems that I have encountered in my experiences with Objectivism, is the fact that many people seem deathly afraid of our viewpoint – EVEN people with whom we should have most in common. They just don't seem to be able to understand it, even if we explain it patiently and calmly. Everything we say gets systematically distorted into something horrible. This used to bother me quite a lot, and still does to some degree. But I have come to a conclusion after a VERY long time thinking about it:
When people misunderstand what Objectivism is, and the things for which we stand, many of them are simply ignorant, NOT willfully antagonistic.
Take, for example, a situation that will doubtless be VERY common to most Objectivists: the issue of religion, and atheism. Whenever I would make statements to the effect that I didn't (and still don't), believe the Judeo-Christian mythology, everybody would go into emotional meltdown: their powers of reason would mysteriously disappear.
You can't really blame them, however. Most "Believers" (in whatever religion), simply don't understand, or think about, their religion very deeply. They are "religious" enough that atheism makes them nervous, but actually have very little understanding of the Bible, Koran, or whatever "holy book" they believe.
Most people don't really understand what Christianity means by "God". They have no idea that the concept makes no sense, as their religion teaches it. To them, "God" is somewhere between Santa Claus and Uncle Sam – a benevolent, strong, heroic Father figure "in the sky". Most of them have only a vague notion of heaven, and no interest in hell whatsoever.
When confronted with the works of Thomas Paine, Robert G. Ingersoll, or Ayn Rand, they honestly do not understand how those critiques of religion could apply to them. And can you REALLY blame them? After all, as we all know, most of the Christian Clergy THEMSELVES don't know half of how bloody and evil parts of the Bible are.
Most "Christians" in this country (and others) couldn't care less about the bible. The only parts of it they know halfway clearly are the "Christmas story", and the Easter thing. They understand the "ten commandments" in a very rudimentary, common sense way. They don't CARE that the "thou shalt not steal" thing is an injunction against stealing your neighbor's SLAVE. Most people honestly have no idea what the bible actually says, or what Christianity actually teaches.
They get terrified by "secular humanism" or "Godless atheists" because pretty much the only exposure to such things has been from socialists, communists, and suchlike. Hell, how do you think the destroyers of the United States were able to hoodwink people into putting "Under god" in the pledge of allegiance, in the first place? The sales-pitch was to make us different from the "Godless Commies". In the popular mind (controlled and shaped as it is by the "activists" and their social agendas), the concepts of Communism and Atheism were skillfully and secretly blended, so that the Common man can no longer tell one from the other.
This is part of what makes Conservatives useless, as I said. Most of them have no idea what their Bible teaches; nor will they listen. More often than not, when they DO find out, they get every bit as disgusted as we do, and worse: you ever wonder where all those preachy "born-again atheist" sites come from?
Same thing with capitalism: what most people in this culture mistakenly think of as capitalism is the lukewarm, state-entangled version: government-backed monopolies, licensing, franchises, tariffs, etc. Most of these people have never tried (as I have), to start a business, or create their own wealth. They've all bought into the mediocrity-mentality that says the only way to make it is as somebody else's "employee". The Entrepreneurial spirit is mostly dead in them, and they see "their jobs" as nothing more than a means to continue subsisting at the same mediocre level.
Reason? Too hard. Easier to watch TV, and give a half-hearted appearance of a religion you don't understand, every Sunday.
Purpose? Work, sleep, watch TV, breed the next generation of slaves, and die in a pool of your own urine.
They haven't learned any better. The government-controlled schools specialize in killing off every trace of the heroic impulse. Generations of potential Howard Roarks are systematically processed into docile, conformist Keatings, by schools, families, and 'peer pressure'.
But ask yourself: having never had self-made goals, how can they be expected to be creatures of "self-made soul?"
It's actually rather heartbreaking, to consider the masses of living zombies lock-stepping through life, their only goal to keep up with the Joneses, afraid to stand taller than the crowd because "what will the neighbors think." It's horrifying.
These poor fools equate "Altruism" with goodheartedness, human warmth, and private charity. They've probably never read Comte, Bismarck, Hegel, or Marx, and barely even heard their names.
So what's the answer?
PATIENCE. Those of us who know a better way MUST stand for it, and MUST reach out to them. Otherwise, this entire world is as good as dead.
So "professional philosophers" don't take Objectivism or Rand very seriously? Screw 'em. It's not ABOUT winning over Academia, in the long run. It's about reclaiming the Human Spirit from its destroyers, and getting people do understand that they DO have a right to exist, and they DO have a right to resist their Masters. We are a slave rebellion, friends: an "Underground railroad" of the Human Spirit.
Academia is a joke. Most so-called "philosophers" have deteriorated into gibbering wordplay, or convinced themselves they don't even exist. To think we're actually going to make headway there is wishful thinking at least, and suicidal at most.
The philosophical gangrene set in several centuries ago. We must ask ourselves: do we have 200 years to wait? Can we afford to let the wheels of history turn, and hope against all evidence that that the inhabitants of that time will still even be recognizably human in spirit and mind?
No. We don't have the time for that.
Even a cursory examination of history will reveal a pivotal fact; namely, that "paradigm shifts" – massive changes of gestalt thinking NEVER originate from WITHIN the old paradigm. In other words, history supports Miss Rand's premise that the "Mavericks" – the Roarks and Galts of the world – are the Atlas's who make the world turn.
So do not despair, friends. We must take up the torch, fight for all that is good and genuine and beautiful and true, and NEVER submit. "Second Renaissance" is eminently appropriate for an Objectivist bookstore's name, but it is ALSO – MUST be – our credo.
WE, and those of like mind, must be the heralds of a "new birth of freedom".
There's no other choice.
Interesting criteria, especially since the philosopher many consider the father of modern conservatism (though he hated that term... and considered himself a "classic liberal" or an "old Whig"), F. A. Hayek, demonstrated very clearly in his writings (The Fatal Conceit being the shortest explication of the proof) that such a standard is not feasible. In fact, he was very adamant about the fact that most of the "useful" rules in society were not only non-rational (in the sense that any individual can accurately predict the outcome of them or rationally design them), but that Cartesian rationality was the fundamental basis of communism and modern liberalism. He explained that the rules/laws/institutions of a society evolved, rather than were somehow designed by rational means and according to strict universal principles, and that many semmingly "arbitrary" or "subjective" rules to an individual observer were in fact far more effective in maintining a free and prosperous society.
So it seems to me that the standard you have proposed is very much associated with leftist ideology, including communism, and rightly so. I am curious as to your rebuttal of Hayek's arguments (if you have read him)...
Please bear with me as "Objectivism" is new to me. And I'm new to Free Republic. What is it that counts as teachings that are "based on clear objective reason from observable evidence" ??? For example, is there, on your view, clear objective reason from observable evidence that theft is wrong? What, on your view, is the evidence?
I concur with Argee.
One of the wonderful things about the Bible is that God manages to use people who have done dispicable things in their lives and turns them into the great heros of the Judeo-Christian faith.
If you go down the list, Abraham lied and committed adultery, Moses committed murder, David committed adultery and murder, Peter denies Jesus during His trial after even being warned that he would do so, Paul was killing Christians.
But God uses these people. He never condons or makes excuses for the sin, but He still forgives them and turns them into great forces for good.
Is my love for my wife based on clear objective reason from observable evidence?
I hold a doctorate in physics and am one of the most highly respected practitioners in my field. I am also a devout Catholic. If Objectivists cannot restrain their expressions of contempt for my faith, what chance have they to persuade me that their supposedly rationally-based creed is worthy of my attention or allegiance?
For a tangentially related discussion of the import and sources of faith, please see also:
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
The Lord said, "Come. Let us reason together."
Never has a more false statement been made. Nothing else this idiot says should be considered since he is obviously ignorant or a liar.
No, it is based on a book, that is an authority, not evidence. Anybody can write anything in a book.
Those become religions since the nature of the universe is, ultimately, unknowable to the human mind.
How do you know what is "unknowable?"
Just out of curiosity, how many of Ayn Rand's works have you read. I've read the Bible countless times, most of the theologians beginning with Augustine, and the early church fathers. I say this only because, to criticize something, I think one is required to know what it really teaches. Some of things you say sound like you really do not understand what Ayn Rand's Objectivism says.
Hank
I don't like it either.
Hank
So, essentially what you are saying is that a Christian is someone who suffers from multiple personality disorder, one controled by the old sinful nature inherited from Adam becasue of Adam's sin, the other implanted by the holy spirit, and the Christian spends the rest of his life being pulled first by one nature and then pulled by the other, completely unstable and enslaved by these two forces over which he has no control. Some freedom!
Even James saw through that Augustinian hoax: James 1:8 "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
I don't mind your preaching the Bible to me, but at least make it the Bible, not this Augustinian/Calvinistic nonsense about a sinful nature and two natures. Thanks!
Hank
I make the same argument for most political views as well, because it is the next thing most people are willing to die or kill for, and most contradict each other and are wrong.
This discussion was not about secular views verses religious views but about religion verses Objectivism. Except for defense, Objectivism opposes all war, all aggression, and all oppression. That is the view that you most compare to the religious views. Can you think of one religion that has consistently opposed these things. Can you think of one religion that has always opposed slavery in any form, for example. Certainly that won't be Christianity.
My point was that for any given mathematical problem there is only one correct answer. If I give a test, and receive ten different answers to the same problem, without even looking at the answers, I know at least nine of them are wrong. The other may be wrong too, but even if it is right, most of the answers are wrong. I wasn't arguing that any particular religion was wrong, only that, even if one were right, most are wrong.
(Since no religion has consistently opposed slavery, at least on that point, all religions are wrong. Can a religion be partly right and partly wrong?)
(By the way my post was not a test, but if it were, you did very well, and are an exceptional Christian. Don't berate yourself about the church father's, they are a bit esoteric, and not all that helpful, probably. You might find Augustine entertaining, he believed salamanders could live in fire and that there were people in the world without mouths whose nourishment came entirely from the air, and he invented the doctrines of original sin, the sinful nature, and most of the strictly Calvinistic doctrines.)
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.