Why They Fear Us

The Rational Argumentator ^ | December 26, 2003 | Henry Emrich

[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.

[Hank Kerchief]

In fact, he was very adamant about the fact that most of the "useful" rules in society ...

I do not believe you understand what I said, or you are misinterpreting Hayek. I was talking, obviously about our knowledge and how it is derived, not about "rules" in society, which are very different things. In fact, what you quoted is something Hayek claimed to know. Do you suppose he would have claimed to have derived these principle irrationally?

Ayn Rand correctly repudiated Dascarte as a Skeptic. If Hayek really confused Descarte with Objective reason, he may safely be dismissed.

The mind is the only faculty we have for discovering and understanding truth and knowledge, and the process by which we discover knowledge is called reason. Since you seem to think there is some other way to knowledge, would you mind telling us what faculty would be used and by what process it is accomplished?

(I suspect you have no idea what Ayn Rand's philosophy is about if you could equate it with anything collective, statist, or totaletarian, which all leftest, socialist, and modern so-called conservatives are. And what kind of person could repudiate the insistance on reason as the criteria for determining truth?)

Hank

[Dog Anchor]

Yes, sorry about that. It has become habitual after so much Victor Hugo, Thomas Hardy and Henry James.

[richardtavor]

Hank, think about your own travails. As I said, He only came for those who needed him. If you don't, good luck.

[Dog Anchor]

liberal pseudo-Christian churches...

Well, now I am curious, could you provide an example of such.

[Doc On The Bay]

"Emrich" is QUITE Correct; EXCEPT, he is IMPATIENT!!

Our Culture will take a Couple of Generations to Get Beyond our Current "State!"

We are STILL the "Best Hope" of Humankind;--& we Might be able to "Drag In" a Couple of OTHER Cultures as we SLOWLY BEGIN to accept the "Culture" Here Described!

The Problem Is, "Current Events" Move SO FAST--& "Cultural Change" is SO SLOW!!

Doc

[G. Stolyarov II]

Welcome to Free Republic.

To address some of your questions, Objectivism bases its standard of evidence on the law of identity, A=A, that everything has a specific nature and that it cannot have it and not have it at the same time and in the same respect. The nature of man is that of a rational being who can grasp both his own identity and the identity of external objects and ideas. An idea or concept is an organizing tool that groups concretes based on their essentially similar elements. (For example, the concept "cat" refers to certain empirical and genetic elements of a group of animals that are present no matter what the individual variations within that group are). According to Rand, a concept is neither wholly outside the perceiver (as in Platonism) nor wholly within his mind (as in Subjectivism). Instead, a concept is inextricably linked to a relationship between the mind and reality and is needed for the mind to analyze and grasp it. Rand's theory of epistemology therefore furnishes the link between the conceptual and the concrete that has been needed by defenders of rationality throughout the ages.

Evidence in the philosophical realm is presented as a combination of empirical data (for reasoning on a given social or political subject) and rationally derived principles from a set of incontrovertible axioms (there are three: existence, identity, consciousness). For the immorality of theft, we observe that every man is a rational being whose individual mind can bring about enjoyment of the fruits of his labor, i.e. his property. If we hold the premise of every man's rationality (derived from observation and conceptual integration, as well as examination of one's own mind), it follows that every man has an immutable right to dispose of his own property as he sees fit. Theft by any agency (individual or governmental) is a violation of this right and therefore immoral.

Best wishes on your exploration of Objectivism. I would suggest that you read Rand's fiction as well as "An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and "The Virtue of Selfishness." If you attain my level of enthusiasm, you will eventually come to have read the vast majority of her published work. My magazine, The Rational Argumentator, should also help you gain an understanding of some of Rand's ideas and their logical extrapolations by various later thinkers.

See TRA's master index:

http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/masterindex.html

[G. Stolyarov II]

"The Problem Is, "Current Events" Move SO FAST--& "Cultural Change" is SO SLOW!!"

I concur with you on this point. Online activism is my leisure pasttime, but I cannot ever find the opportunity to track every change in the political or cultural arena or every new factor that must be considered. My work outside of philosophy is far too time-consuming.

Emrich himself, however, advises that patience and gradual coalition-building with like-minded thinkers can over time bring forth a powerful intellectual force of rationality's advocates in the cultural arena. Perhaps this is why, Mr. Kerchief, he and I refer to an "Objectivist movement." We recognize the need for coordinated action in order to reform the political status quo into a system that facilitates the survival and flourishing of indvidual thinkers and creators.

I have often found that the ideas and analyses of other Objectivists fill in gaps in my awareness that I could not have for sheer lack of time personally addressed.

Perhaps this is why The Rational Argumentator is filled with commentaries by other thoughtful authors. Yours, if you should wish to submit them for publication, would also be welcome.

[tet68]

Oho, another "Vanguard". Just what we need.

[G. Stolyarov II]

For my answer to your question, please read my "Essay Questioning the Validity of Religions" at

http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/religion.html

Also, quoting from Don Watkins III's "God: Examining the Arguments"

"I will suggest only three examples of sexism (out of about 50 to 60).

1) I Corinthians 11: 3-15; man is head of women, only man is in God's image

2) I Corinthians 14:34-35; Women keep silence, learn only from husbands

3) I Timothy 2:11-14; Women learn in silence in all subjection; Eve was sinful, Adam blameless.

[On Jesus:]

1) Matthew 10:34; "Think not that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I come not to bring peace, but a sword.""

See the whole essay, a thorough defense of atheism, at
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/God.html

[Doc On The Bay]

You Flatter me...

Doc

[G. Stolyarov II]

"How does an Objectivist reconcile that with the plain language of the First Amendment, which demands, in essence, indifference to religion with respect to government, and not separation?"

Because the mentality behind the liberties and individualism inherent in American law directly contradicts some of the essential precepts of the Bible. See Dr. Harry Binswanger's "The Ten Commandments vs. America"

http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/tencommandments.html

[possible]

For the immorality of theft, we observe that every man is a rational being whose individual mind can bring about enjoyment of the fruits of his labor, i.e. his property. If we hold the premise of every man's rationality (derived from observation and conceptual integration, as well as examination of one's own mind), it follows that every man has an immutable right to dispose of his own property as he sees fit.

Your account here raises three concerns:

1. Not every man is rational. In fact, the point of your original post was that lots of folks are irrational.

2. Not everyone can bring about the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor. Children are dependent on their parents for many years. Some folks due to disease or accident are disabled and dependent on others.

3. Even if your premises (1 and 2) are granted, I don't see how your conclusion (every man has an immutable right to dispose of his own property as he sees fit) follows.

[Hank Kerchief]

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 guess you are new to Objectivism, and this is an excellent question. There is very definite evidence that theft is wrong, but it, like the evidence for the principle that oxygen supports combustion, cannot just be pointed to, saying, "see, that is the evidence." There is a chain of reason based on the evidence of the nature of the world we live in and the nature of man and the requirements of his nature.

The long answer is the whole Objectivist ethics, which is most succinctly explicated in Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness.

There is also an excellent complete online overview of Objectivist Philosophy here: Importance of Philosophy

But of course you want a short answer. But there are no short answers. Truth is neither simple to understand or easy to discover, and like all other things of value, requires effort and time to acquire. The desire for short easy answers to all questions is a kind of moral evasion of the requirements of reality.

Until you have time to pursue and discover the whole answer to you question, here is something from another publication of mine:

Normal Human Behavior

The question of normality in humans is complicated by the fact that humans are volitional beings. The behavior of all other creatures is determined directly by their nature. Human behavior is determined by their nature only to the extent that some behavior is required but no specific behavior is directly determined.

Does that mean man can do just anything? No, because man does have a specific nature, and whatever behavior is chosen must conform to that nature. For example, the unique psychological characteristic of human nature is volition, the ability and necessity to choose. Normal human behavior must conform to the requirements of this aspect of his nature:

• The ability (and necessity) to choose. A human being can do nothing except by conscious choice, therefore all a human being is or does, his success or failure, his happiness or lack of it, his very life is determined by what he chooses. The necessity to choose cannot be escaped and neither can the consequences of those choices, or his responsibility for them.

• The ability (and necessity) to acquire knowledge. A human being can make choices only if he knows what choices are available and has some way of knowing what the consequences of those choices are. A human being must therefore seek knowledge, and neither pretend to knowledge he does not have, or attempt to evade knowledge he does have.

• The ability (and necessity) to create. A human being must create by productive effort what is required by his nature to live and enjoy his life as a human being. What is required for a human to live and enjoy his life is not provided by nature. Nature provides the resources, but discovering those resources and how to use them to fulfill his desires, and the act of finding and using them is productive effort.

  A man may choose not to fulfill the requirements of his psychological nature, but he cannot live normally that way. It is not normal for a human being to live as a parasite, stealing or mooching from others who produce what his life requires, like a bloodsucker or louse. It is not normal for a human being to live as a pet or a slave of others, living on handouts from those he acts to please. It is not normal for a human being to live like a plant, depending on accident or luck, waiting for nature, fortune, or God to provide the things he needs to live and enjoy his life. These ways of living are normal for some organism, because it is their nature, it is not man's nature, however, and no man living contrary to his nature can live successfully or enjoy his life.

...............................

The immorality of stealing is based on the nature of, "property," which Objectivists regard as the product of human productive effort. A person's property is all they have produced by their own effort or acquired by trading the product of their efforts for the propety of others through mutual agreement.

Since the production of property requires both one's time and one's effort, stealing another's property is tantamount to taking away another's effort and time, that is, a portion of their life.

An Objectivist not only considers theft immoral, but regards any gain of value or property that is not earned or produced by one's own effort, theft. Most Objectivits, except under special conditions, do not like to receive gifts, because they so strongly and rightly feel, the unearned is immoral. Human being's must produce to live. That is an ultimate requirement of their nature. Anyone who limits the ability of another human being to produce or takes away what they have produced is interfering in another human being's pursuit of their own life.

That's the best I can do for a short answer for now.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Is my love for my wife based on clear objective reason from observable evidence?

I do not know about your love for your wife, but my love for my wife is. If your love is based on anything else it is mere whim or irrational passion. How can you possibly know you will still love your wife tomorrow. I know I will, because I know exactly why I love her.

Hank

[M Kehoe]

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.

I stopped there. I tried to read the whole thing, but the premise was flawed:

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...

I'm afraid you are mistaken. I fear not a philosophy, nor viewpoint, nor religion, or man. T'is only The Lord I fear.

That was easy.

5.56mm

[G. Stolyarov II]

"1. Not every man is rational. In fact, the point of your original post was that lots of folks are irrational."

Yet, we must still grant that every human being has the CAPACITY to use his reason, should he CHOOSE to do so. Choice is essential in Objectivist ethics. Since man is a being of volitional consciousness, his most fundamental choice is to be aware or not, from which is derived the choice to think and to reason.

If a man chooses not to reason, a society must allow him to fail and suffer for his personal mistakes, but not to inflict force upon others and in any manner impede their rational pursuits.

"2. Not everyone can bring about the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor. Children are dependent on their parents for many years. Some folks due to disease or accident are disabled and dependent on others."

I refer you to a brief account of Objectivism's philosophy on children and their status by psychologist Nathaniel Branden.

http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/que02.html

Children are not fully rational, but they do have vestiges of reason and the underlying means to become fully rational in the future. Hence, they possess rights to the extent of their rational capacity's maturity.

"3. Even if your premises (1 and 2) are granted, I don't see how your conclusion (every man has an immutable right to dispose of his own property as he sees fit) follows."

If my two points are granted, this means that the individual man is most fit to employ his property in his own self-interest (which Objectivism's ethical statement: every man is his own purpose and ultimate object of value) and should thus have the RIGHT to do so.

For a thorough introduction to selfishness as a moral value, see "Anthem" or "The Virtue of Selfishness."

For now, a brief commentary by Michael Miller on what happens when selfishness is NOT embraced should provide support for the argument:

http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Nihilist_Mutants.html

[thoughtomator]

All that article demonstrates is the obtuseness of self-labeled objectivists with respect to the concept of God, and the ease in which such an author can create a strawman.

Is there any objectivist whatsoever who actually understands the monotheistic concept of God?

[possible]

Thank you both for your replies. I'm out of time for today. I'll try to understand your responses and reply tomorrow.

[FierceDraka]

What I often find about "objectivists" (I won't say it's true of all) is they don't admit there prejudices.

LOL I'm an objectivist, and I freely admit my own prejudices. Oh, hell yeah! If it weren't for my own prejudices, I wouldn't be an objectivist.

In fact, I'm a gun-totin', flag-wavin', don't-tread-on-me, bomb-the-Arabs-screamin', Constitution-lovin' objectivist, to boot!

And every bit of my personal ideology can be supported by cold, hard facts and reason. I don't understand why we get ragged on by conservatives so badly. We're all engaged in the fight for the future of humanity, the war between socialistic serfdom and the freedom and dignity of the individual.

As far as religion goes, I think of religious freedom as the natural corollary of freedom of speech, religious freedom denoting freedom of conscience. And without conscience (in this context), there is no speech. Everyone has a right to their own faith, so long as they do not use it as a tool of coercion. (Ie: Islamic fundamentalism)

[Hank Kerchief]

And which Philosophers were the ones that said there was no objective truth?

Descarte, Hume, Kant, Hegel, all of the Platonic and neo-Platonic realists, all of the logcial positivists, and all of the linquistic analysists, off the top of my head.

Hank