Why They Fear Us

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.

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?

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.

I said: I was talking, obviously about our knowledge and how it is derived, not about "rules" in society, which are very different things.

You siad: Not at all. The so-called "knowledge" of society and the individuals within it is used primarily for decision-making purposes, including rules, laws, and social institutions. You cannot separate ways of knowing from the decisions made in their name.

You evidently entertain the allusion that those who rule and make "rules" for societies actually use "knowledge" and "reason" in their choices and actions. You must live in heaven.

It accumulates regardless of whether the individual chooses to participate in society, chooses to be rational or irrational, or even understands the consequences of his/her actions. Those traditions which are useful survive.

Bunk. Most of the, "traditions," that survive in most of the world do so because most people are terrified of anything new and of thinking for themselves. All that is good about Western Civilization is due to those few brave and fully rational individuals who defied, "tradition," to discover truth and freedom. If not all, than most traditions (and most are older than anything in the West, the Muslim traditions for example) keep those who succumb to them in perpetual poverty and oppression and only survive because they haven't managed to quite kill them all off, and because the West steps in to save them every time one of the disasters their traditions produce, like famine, strikes.

Talk about conceit. You said, But at the same time, you (or Ayn Rand) must be able to explain to me how the rational observation of the individual should always trump the accumulated wisdom of the ages as is incorporated in tradition. I have a surprise for you. We don't have to explain anything to anyone. If everyone who has ever made anything of their lives (by defying tradition and superstition) had to explain it to anyone else before they did it, there would be no Western Cilivilization.

If you want to follow tradition or allow some authority to speak for you and make your decisions and dictate what you will believe, do so. You do not need to explain it to anyone else. Of course your free to explain it to anyone who wants to listen. You are not free to demand others explain to you why they disagree with you.

Hank

Charles,

I said: I was talking, obviously about our knowledge and how it is derived, not about "rules" in society, which are very different things.

You said: Not at all. The so-called "knowledge" of society and the individuals within it is used primarily for decision-making purposes, including rules, laws, and social institutions. You cannot separate ways of knowing from the decisions made in their name.

You evidently entertain the allusion that those who rule and make "rules" for societies actually use "knowledge" and "reason" in their choices and actions. You must live in heaven.

Hank

Isaid: Since no religion has consistently opposed slavery, at least on that point, all religions are wrong.

You said: And your proof of this statement?

Your question is my proof. If there were a religion that had always consistently repudiated slavery, and its adherents had never practiced it in any form, you would have posted it immediately, showing how stupid my rash statement was. You cannot. That is my proof.

(There are some religions, [unlike the Christian religion which actually explains the rules for proper treatment of slaves, buying and selling them, etc.], in which slavery, while not repudiated, is not condoned, and, as far as I know, slavery is generally not related to those religions, although some holding those religions certainly had slaves, e.g. Shinto and Buddhism come to mind.)

Hank

Just curious, since I haven't read much of her, but do you consider what Rand writes as gospel?

Certainly not. I accept no authority but the authority of my own mind, and the arbiter of all truth, reality.

Objectivism is the name of Any Rand's philosophy. When the discussion is about Objectivism, Rand is the authority on her own philosophy. Objectivism does not cover all of philosophy (there is no Ontology, for example) and I hold views which are not Objectivist. For example, her epistemology is excellent, but, I think mistaken in some areas, and needs more detail in others. In the area of ethics, agree almost entirely with the basic principles. We disagree sharply about esthetics and politics.

By the way, Ayn Rand was a great defender of freedom of religion. The restrictions that are being put on Christians today would never be possible under a government run on Objectivist principles. I think this is one of the points the author of the original article was trying to make. Christians, in fact all religious people, have absolutely nothing to fear from Objectivists who would die before allowing any kind of force to be used to prevent anyone from believing, practicing, and preaching whatever they choose. Few religions would allow Objectivists that same freedom, however.

Oh yes, Happy New Year!

Hank

No it isn't. You have to prove that any correct religion would repudiate slavery in all its forms.

Do you have any proof, or any reason to say that whatsoever?

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.

Indeed. My interpretation is succeptible to being fallacious, being only human and therefore imperfect. But that is the case with anyone, of whatever faith or ideology they choose to align themselves with.

I'm not saying that my view is the One Single Guiding Truth of the Universe - far from it. (I had to deal with that mentality growing up under the yoke of Mormonism.) All I am saying is that Objectivism seems to best fit my own personal view of the world, having independently reached the same conclusions before I had ever even heard of Ayn Rand or any of the other Objectivist writers, or of the philosophy itself, for that matter.

Peace and Prosperity this New Year!

Certainly not. I accept no authority but the authority of my own mind, and the arbiter of all truth, reality.

I would call that insanity.

Well speak for yourself. My mind does not have "bugs" and my reason is not "faulty."

By saying so, you prove my point.

Happy New Year to you, too.

Shalom.

All I am saying is that Objectivism seems to best fit my own personal view of the world, having independently reached the same conclusions before I had ever even heard of Ayn Rand or any of the other Objectivist writers, or of the philosophy itself, for that matte

But my point is that Objectivism is flawed from the outset because it relies on something that is inherently unreliable. You are like a ship's captain trying to guide his ship not by the north star, but by the lamp at the top of the main mast. You are lost but confident.

Once you know that you can not accurately percieve reality and know that you can not discern truth, then you must turn to a source that can.

True, when you listen to that source your faculties still get in the way, but at least it's in the way of truly objective truth. The north star is viewed through an atmosphere that distorts the image, but it is still sufficient.

Objectively speaking, the version of objectivism that is presented in this thread requires faith in G-d.

Shalom.

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.

I find statements such as this, by those professing that there is no God or that God is unknowable, to be amusing. Wonder how they derive a moral foundation to use the word "evil" without belief in a higher authority than man, an ultimate authority. Without that authority, the word 'evil' simply becomes a matter of personal choice: the "what's right or wrong for you may not be what's right or wrong for me" thing. And no one can actually claim that his view of what constitutes "evil" is any more or less valid than any other view of what constitutes "evil".

I would call that insanity.

Now I know what Paul felt like.

Acts 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

I've been called worse, however. In any case, I've enjoyed disagreeing with you, but now I have to go make some preparations for tomorrow's dinner.

Happy New Year to you, too.

Thank you!

Hank

Most "Believers" (in whatever religion), simply don't understand, or think about, their religion very deeply.

On the other hand, Hank, this gentlemen seems not to have considered the possibility that some of us do think about our religion "very deeply"; in fact have meditated it profoundly over very long time periods. And thus we may recognize that an Objectivist also has a "religion," just as "subjective" as our own deeply-experienced religious faith. And that Objectivism just ain't as good as the Judeo-Christian myth in terms of explicating the "real world" and humanity's position within it. FWIW.

I've been called worse, however.

I did not call you names. If your only reality is in your mind, that is a form of insanity. If I understand correctly, when you can't distinguish between reality and what's in your mind, that's the definition of insanity, but I'm not a psychologist so I won't stand on that.

Since you probably won't be back today, let me clarify some things.

Even if your reasoning ability were perfect (you never have to admit you are wrong, which I doubt) you would still have a limited amount of information on which to base your reasoning. Life is incredibly complex. Perfect reasoning on any subject requires perfect knowledge which is absolutely beyond you or me.

Also, if your mind has bugs, it is likely that the first bug is the inability to know it has bugs. That's why people can't declare themselves sane. Your mind can't know whether it is functioning properly since it has to be functioning properly to know. You must rely on external information sources to know whether what you are seeing is true or not.

Another point, you have rejected the eyewitness testimony of Matthew, Mark, and John, and the carefully researched testimony of Luke. Your statement on this thread was that you reject them out-of-hand by saying, "anyone can write anything in a book." Objective reasoning weighs eyewitness testimony heavily unless the witness can be discredited with specific evidence. Do you reject these witnesses for objective or subjective reasons?

I know what it is like to be in a discussion that does not die. Even if you don't respond to these points, please ponder them.

Shalom b'Shem.

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.