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.

[thinktwice]

I'd rather have Jesus, "than silver or gold," as the song goes, and eternal death.

The promise of eternal life is the ultimate promise within religion.

Personally, I place weight on what I know.

Happy New Year, and ... good luck.

[unspun]

Me too.

Happy New Year ladies!

[unspun]

Happy New Year to you too, tt.

God Himself is the ultimate promise of "The Way."

[Alamo-Girl]

Happy New Year, unspun! Hugs!

[Hank Kerchief]

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

Just how did you expect to clarify something to someone who was not going to be there (here)? (Maybe you thought I would study your response over the holiday, eh?)

Look, you wrote two paragraphs explaining the inefficacy of the mind to understand the truth from evidence. Then you spend the next paragraph explaining how your reasoning from the evidence proves you are right. Now, if your mind cannot be trusted to discover the truth for certain from the evidence, why should I, or anyone, then take your word for it you have done just that.

I submit that the results of your so-called "Objective reasoning" that "weighs eyewitness testimony" is actually a result of one of those bugs in your mind you were talking about.

Hank

[azcap]

Objectivist who are claiming reality to be only what is in their own mind need to take a quick look at the definition of "delusional." I love the writings of Rand. I wish they were required reading in high schools. The world would be a better place if schools churned out Objectivists instead of Marxists. All philosophies have holes. The Nihilism and Atheism of Objectivism are big holes. Rand was big influence on Clarence Thomas yet recognizing her flaws and the short-sightedness of her atheism he has managed to take what is good from Objectivism to make God's creation better.

[Xenalyte]

Why They Fear Us

Don't know about y'all, but they fear ME because I'm a big well-armed broad.

[Xenalyte]

What's the difference between an arguer and an argumentator?

[Hank Kerchief]

The Nihilism and Atheism of Objectivism are big holes. Rand was big influence on Clarence Thomas yet recognizing her flaws and the short-sightedness of her atheism he has managed to take what is good from Objectivism to make God's creation better.

Atheism was not a major issue in Rand's philosophy, and I would be obliged if you would give one specific example from anything Rand wrote that is nihilistic. Rand was an archenemy of nihilism.

No Objectivist ever claimed reality to be only what is in their own mind, in fact, that is the very opposite of Objectivism. It is Idealism and Neo-Platonic Realism which both do say reality is only in the mind. The point of Objectivism is that reality exists independently of anyone's mind and must be discovered. The mind happens to be the faculty humans have for discovering it. The mind is the means to knowing reality, not reality itself.

I am not, strictly speaking, an Objectivist, although I agree with most of Objectivism, and all of its fundamental principles. However, I have discovered that almost all those who think they disagree with Objectivism do not know what it is in the first place. Ayn Rand is constantly accused of teaching or saying things she never taught or said.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

What's the difference between an arguer and an argumentator?

Pomposity

Hank

[betty boop]

Agreed! May God ever bless you and yours in every way in the New Year, Brother Arlen!

[Mr.Atos]

Well said, Sir!

Thank for the ping.

Albeit, azcap makes a good illustration regarding Clarence Thomas; demonstrating that Objectivism, in its pure sense, is not necessarily exclusive of other beliefs, it merely encourages actions based on what is 'known' and therefore rational. Regardless of Ayn Rand's personal stand regarding religion - and I agree with Hank that she tended to avoid direct discussions of the subject - Objectivism, as defined, does not conflict with 'beliefs' that are maintain regarding existence as long as the belief does not render a contradiction with reality as motivation for action. (ie. jumping off a cliff because you think it to be God's will is in direct contradiction with the continuation of life and is therefore irrational... and is consequently, considered to be a bad idea).

Objectivism is less concerned with sprirtual directives of faith, than with rational definitions of existence as manifested in Law. As an illustration, I would pose this question: Why should one not steal? (ino...take something that does not belong to that person?)

1. Because it is against the law?

2. Because it is a sin?

3. Because it is wrong?

The rational answer would be #1. Because it is wrong. The item does not belong to you. Taking it, against the will of it's owner, would represent a violation of that person's sovereignty as the rightful owner of the products of his life and his physical and intellectual efforts and is therefore a direct challenge to his existence... and inversely your own. Independently, the other two options lack substantive definition for a rational basis for argument against the action. In the case of a sin, the punishment for such is bestowed by God. What if the thief is an athiest? The motivation for the individual Christian exists and is legitimate as a moral virtue, as I think Ayn Rand would agree. But, there is no common application for it in secular law as a concept extracted through the dissemination of ethics and that would be a subject for her concern.

As an example. I would point to the collapse of moral principles as they relate to abortion, taxation, marriage, and property rights. The defensive argument (predominantly from the Right), as based on fundamental religious principles, cannot withstand the onslaught of secular rejection. The debate is being lost due to a weak defense to an otherwise stupid argument. Why is abortion wrong? Because one engaged in an action with full knowledge of its consequences, and should, therefore, not be freed from the responsibilty of the choices made by consenting parties by destroying a potentially viable human life. Any argument to the contrary is irrational, regardless of a religious moral position or, in the case of the Left, no moral position whatsoever.

I would only add that when Ayn Rand stood face to face with God, I expect that she did NOT deny his existence... nor did he deny her moral significance.

[BabsC]

when His creation smacks you in the face every morning you wake up.

Actually, instead of labeling what smacks us in the face every morning as a "God given" we have decided with hard work, perseverence and the building up of knowledge and technology over years and generations of observation and wisdom we will be the ones finding and creating it all. We will be what is today thought of as Gods.

[possible]

My questions were, Is there, on your view, clear objective reason from observable evidence that theft is wrong? What, on your view, is the evidence?

Your reply was, 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.

OK. Your answer to my first question is, "Yes, there is clear objective reason from observable evidence that theft is wrong." But aside from this you just give a series of conclusions. Which leaves my second question, What, on your view, is the evidence?

I don't require a short answer. Just give me the first step or two of a long answer.

[possible]

Regarding my number 1 you write, "we must still grant that every human being has the CAPACITY to use his reason, should he CHOOSE to do so." I'll grant a modified 1.

1. Nearly all people have some capacity to reason.

Do you want to try to support a stronger claim?

Regarding my number 2 you write, "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."

This misses my point entirely. I wasn't talking about the rationality of children, but the fact that children are dependent on others for their very survival, and hence for enjoying the fruits of their labor. I didn't say, but should have, that most people are dependent on others for enjoying the fruit of their labor. My labor is writing computer programs. Enjoying any benefit of this labor at all depends on an enormous and complex social environment. As just a minute example, without widespread reliable electic power, noone would have any interest in buying the product of my labor.

Once we get 1 and 2 sorted out, perhaps we can discuss what follows from these premises.

[hosepipe]

Thanks for the heads up... Interesting discourse here...

[G. Stolyarov II]

Mr. Curry,

Though I disagree wholly with many of Nietzsche's nihilistic and Dionysian ideas, this is no reason to reject the entire body of his thought, especially his refutation of the parasite's altruist morality in favor of a more individualistic approach that recognizes that individual innovators, who had dared to break with tradition, have been the prime movers of history. Nietzsche, in that regard, had instituted a worship of Man the Thinker, the Apollonian Man whom he had (quite to contradict himself) elsewhere denounced. Though I, as a full-fledged atheist, do not myself embrace the proposition that God is dead, I find that Nietzsche used it skillfully to urge Man to aspire to that level of efficiency and dignity "once" reserved for deities.

I am certainly far more fond of Nietzsche than I am of Augustine or Auguste Comte.

[G. Stolyarov II]

"What's the difference between an arguer and an argumentator?"

An "arguer" is someone whose key purpose is to ARGUE, i.e. to engage in intellectual conflict for the sake of intellectual conflict rather than for the values that discussing a particular subject would bring.

An "argumentator" is someone whose purpose is to present rational ARGUMENTS in discourse supporting his point of view and ensuring that his ideas receive a healthy and scientific scrutiny by engaging in discussions such as this. An argumentator is not afraid to argue, but his central purpose is the pursuit of truth that a man can obtain through the objective reasoning of his fully capable mind.

[G. Stolyarov II]

"This misses my point entirely. I wasn't talking about the rationality of children, but the fact that children are dependent on others for their very survival, and hence for enjoying the fruits of their labor. I didn't say, but should have, that most people are dependent on others for enjoying the fruit of their labor. My labor is writing computer programs. Enjoying any benefit of this labor at all depends on an enormous and complex social environment. As just a minute example, without widespread reliable electic power, noone would have any interest in buying the product of my labor."

Children, as the Branden commentary points out, are in fact partially dependent, and the parents who brought them into the state of dependency have an obligation to rear the children (or facilitate their upbringing through other agencies) until the children are capable of autonomously functioning.

As for dependence on other individuals or industries in the distribution of one's product or labor, it must be remembered that one's very choice of RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHERS (in any sense, in this case, the economic one) must be derived from one's individual reason if one wishes to most productively employ such associations. It is your reason that suggested that the profession with which you are most compatible (given your training, work ethic, interests, etc.) is computer programming. If you had given up your capacity to reason individually, from which personal success can be derived, you would have become a literal slave, driven by others to accomplish a task "beneficial" to society or to the tyrant, which would have given you lesser gains than you could have decided to acquire for yourself.

"1. Nearly all people have some capacity to reason.

Do you want to try to support a stronger claim?"

It depends on what temporal scope you extend to the term "capacity." If the claim concerns just the present instant, I will advocate it as is. Yet, in my own intellectual labors, I have recognized the necessity of extending the status of rational beings to fetuses and brain-dead individuals so as to prevent them from being dubbed rightless chunks of meat. (Here I diverge with "orthodox" Objectivism, but find my own position to be more convincing. It hinges on the concepts of "futuristic certainty" and "past volitional consciousness.") If you would like to examine it, please see "An Objectivist Condemnation of Abortion"

http://solohq.com/Articles/Stolyarov/An_Objectivist_Condemnation_of_Abortion.shtml

and "Daleford v. Stolyarov: A Euthanasia Debate"

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