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.
What this silly Know-it-All doesn't get (and it's really a very common problem among Objectivist and non-Objectivist atheists alike, e.g., Richard Dawkins) is that the extreme condescension that they so frequently exhibit towards their purported inferiors is an important key to understanding their mindset. As Michael Novak so eloquently pointed out last week, "a nice irony is this: Whereas Christianity (and Judaism) can give atheists a dignified place within their own theory of religious liberty, it seems quite difficult for atheists such as Dawkins [or the author of the above piece] to assign religious people any place in their own theory other than the loony bin." Marion Montgomery took pains to make a similar point out in a beautiful essay in First Things some years back, "he [the atheist, in this case she was speaking of Dawkins] stands at a transcendent point, above both genes and body and mind, in a presumption of containing by his pronouncement an absolute comprehension of the nature of man. Thus he becomes an excellent illustration of what I shall call the provincial mind. Alas, his is an intellectual malady conspicuous among our intelligentsia: the modernist mind presuming intellectual autonomy beyond limit."
Atheists are the new hidebound bigots, and the condescension evident in the above excerpt (and throughout the whole essay, really) is a sign of it. They are now the ones who circumscribe their small intellectual province and defend it from all comers, fiercely shutting down any suggestion that some mysteries may remain outside their provincial walls.
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.
Any conclusion is easily reached when you start from a compatible premise a priori. Clear observable evidence not only does not support the contention above, but it directly contradicts it. Modern societies might be affluent enough to make the above true, but primitive tribal man depended dramatically on the group for survival. Individualism is a luxury of the comfortable (one reason we should be attempting to raise the standard of living for everyone). Humanity has always lived as parasites, whether from the land, the animals inhabiting it, or the other poor bastards who lived there first. Would this be true in a "perfect world"? Of course not. But you are the one who emphasizes observation, and history disproves your theory wholeheartedly. Show me the "normal" society based on the above dictums in history!
What makes America great is that it is decidedly NOT normal. It is a sparkling blip in human history; one of the few moments when human beings can live in freedom and prosperity. The idea that somehow freedom is "normal" smacks of the philosophies of the left, which declare that any change to the traditions and institutions of America can be made without destroying what makes America so unique in human history. Freedom is not "normal", which is why it is so precious!
Both your definition of "normal" and of "human nature" are incredibly arbitrary, and are based on philosophical theory, not "observation." All humanity might yearn to be free (in fact, most people don't... the pack instinct we inherited from our distant ancestors still manefests itself in myriad ways), but most are content to live within the bounds of society. Many will even reject freedom, as freedom is often less comfortable and less secure. That is why oppressive governments are so easily established and so long maintained, even by those who are oppressed. Your "observations", sir, are fantasy...
Only for rather narrow definitions of "superior".
What I was describing are the requirements of human nature to live according to that nature. There was no contention that most men do it, or even try to. Most people spend their entire lives living in defiance of the requirements of their own nature, and the results are obvious in our society today, and in the world throughout history. In that sense, you are right that America as "abnormal" (in the usual, common, sense), but in the sense that it is the first place in history where men were free to fully and completely live normally, that is, true to the requirements of there rational volitional nature, it is the exhibition of what men are when completely sane and normal. Even in America, most men sell their freedom to the first religion or politician who comes along promising them security and easy answers.
Both your definition of "normal" and of "human nature" are incredibly arbitrary ...
Since aristotle, man has been "arbitrarily" defined as the rational animal, and rationalaity is only an aspect of that which really distinguishes man from all other creatures, the necessity and ability to choose all of one's behavior consciously. The observation that man's nature is volitional is hardly arbitrary, and certainly not original, being over 2000 years old.
Yes, most men do despise freedom. As George Barnard Shaw wrote, "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
Hank
The problem is that most people get their notions of Christianity from T.V.
Unfortunately, many Christians do too.
Shalom.
Amen! The LORD also provide much objective evidence. The fact that we have to read the accounts of eyewitnesses, rather than having been eyewitnesses ourselves, is an accident of time.
Shalom.
Much of it is eyewitness testimony. To discredit it, you must have some reason. And that reason must be subjective as there is no extant writing to challenge the veracity of the authors.
How do you know what is "unknowable?"
Is the universe finite or infinite?
It is considered infinite because the data suggests so. But if it is, that is unprovable and unknowable. Also, if it is, the finite mind will not be able to grasp it.
Our instruments (eyes, ears, noses, minds) are faulty, therefore the best we have is a faulty understanding of the universe.
I am not critiquing Rand. I am critiquing the article as posted, and some of your own statements as posted.
Shalom.
Er, make that "Augistinian/Calvinistic/Pauline nonsense"
Oops, Paul was in the Bible.
Not that I think the two natures have been fully explained on this thread, but the concept is definately Biblical. Your problem is that you have not fully understood James.
Shalom.
And your proof of this statement?
Shalom.
Just curious, since I haven't read much of her, but do you consider what Rand writes as gospel?
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.
The mind has known bugs. Therefore our reason is faulty at best. The quest is doomed before it starts.
Shalom.
No thanks. This brief summation suggests that you don't understand enough of Christianity or the Bible. To then use attacks on Christianity as a defense of atheism must be beyond your grasp. Finally, to use attacks on religion as a defense of atheism you must not only attack all known religions, but all possible religions. That is beyond anyone.
Shalom.
You mean every bit of your personal ideology can be supported by your interpretation of cold, hard facts and your ability to reason.
Unless your interpretation is perfect, and your ability is perfect, your personal ideology can not be based on truth. And I know your ability is not perfect even if your interpretation is.
Shalom.
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.