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.
Shalom back at ya.
First, there is no such group. Objectivism is a philosophy, not something people join, not a movement, and no one speaks for them. (Please wait for this to load if you click it so it will go to the right reference.)
Secondly, this is just the opinion of one person about their experience.
Unfortunately there are a number of self-described groups that call themselves, "Objectivists," and others that talk about an, "Objectivist movement," which are not either good representative of Ayn Rand's philosophy or very "objective" in their methods.
Hank
I noticed that, but I read yours after I wrote mine.
The problem is that some of the words are rather fuzzy.
For a long time "religion" meant that which was taught in a church. I believe that is the meaning when the Founders talked about not establishing a religion, even though many had established Christian thought as part of their individual states.
Today, some still see that as the definition. I see "religion" as a set of codified beliefs about what is true in the universe. I say this because man can never know what is true because man perceives truth through flawed instruments (his own systems). Once you have codified you beliefs about truth, you have a religion. If that religion matches with one of the existing religions, then hie the to a church (or temple or whatever). If not, then you may claim whatever name or description for your religion that you like.
Atheism is a religion in that it is a codified view of truth. It has no church, and so the concept confuses some. But the reality is the same.
My own belief is that you can not know everything that is true, but "The Truth" is a person, and His name is Jesus.
And you can know Him. If you know Him, you know The Truth, and The Truth will set you free.
May the new year bring you rich blessings and may you daily come to a closer and more fulfilling relationship with He Who Is The Truth.
Shalom.
To ask a meaningful question you must know the meaning of the words you use. Either your question is meaningless, or you know what truth means. Which is it?
Hank
If you wish to call a philosophy a religion, that's fine. It's a free country, you can use language any way you wish, even incorrectly. Objectivism is only a philosophy. See Post #83
By religion I mean any of the varieties of beliefs people hold that are in part or entirely comprised of teachings not based on clear objective reason from observable evidence. That is what Objectivism repudiates. If you are going to call all philosophies or world views religion, then we need another word for that which I just defined as religion. Maybe we can call them credulities, or simply organized irrationalities, or, what they really are, superstitions.
Hank
[T]his is just the opinion of one person about their experience.Fair enough. Any individual who resorts to imputing irrational fear of his opponent(s) rather than relying on the intrinsic power of truth to persuade is arguing from a position of weakness, not strength.
Thanks for the link.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are referring to a 'separation of the POWERS of CHURCH and STATE. Not separation of CHURCH and STATE.
Nowhere did the founding fathers state they wanted the CHURCH and STATE completely separate,as the Christian principles guided the forming of the constitution and bill of rights.
It's ON THE MONEY. In GOD WE TRUST.
Yes, that is correct.
I happen to know, Henry Emrich. He is quite courageous and not one who would take the position you and others have gathered from his article. It is not a good representation of Objectivist thought, I believe. There are mistakes in the article and I think G. Stolyarov II has somewhat embarrased Objectivism by posting it.
Hank
Please quote the passages of Scripture that support a representative form of a Republic, and I will quote the passages form John Locke (a deist, not a Christian) which are almost word-for-word the description of our Constitution.
Hank
Gotta agree with you Joe. Objectivism would be fine if the end result or our lives here wasn't a graveyard. The Golden Rule is the only philosophy I've found to be better than Objectivism. I look at Objectivism as a resting stop on the way to Truth. Oh well, at least they're not Commies ;-).
Not only is this demonstrably untrue, but even moreso it is untrue from even a cursory look at history. Take the sciences as an example. Major paradigm shifts have almost always been cross-disciplinary and built upon a solid foundation of associated theory from within the dominant paradigm. The two most massive paradigm shifts within physics, that of relativity and of quantum mechanics, were not only based on mathematical and physical advances growing directly out of the standard paradigm (in fact, it was the failure of attempts to define natural processes within the standard paradigm that led to the new paradigms), but also, they were in many cases so obvious the next place to look that multiple people came up with the parts independently (Minkowski for relativity, the numerous mathematical quantum theories which were melded into one final theory, etc.)
If, by some chance, he intended to limit the term "paradigm" to philosophies only (an incorrect usage); even as early as the Greek philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) has the "new" idea been formed by a rethinking or rejection of the "old" idea... still a fundamentally organic process. In either case, this point is demonstrably false!
Christianity is a belief held entirely comprised of teachings based on clear objective reason from observable evidence.
Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Hundreds observed this fact and bore witness to it. The fact that you or I did not bear witness to it (owing to a timing problem) does not make it any less observable to those who were there.
Likewise the teachings in the Bible (at least from Genesis 12 on) are based on verifiable evidence.
Some philosophies are only philosophies. Others presume to describe the nature of the universe. Those become religions since the nature of the universe is, ultimately, unknowable to the human mind.
Shalom.
I happen to know, Henry Emrich. He is quite courageous and not one who would take the position you and others have gathered from his article.Speaking only for myself, my objection is to the headline, "Why They Fear Us." Perhaps someone other than Emrich wrote it.
Possibly, but out of all the books sold in the publishing industry each year? It doesn't even register.
I believe I stated that Christian principles, not necessarily parts of Scripture.
Perhaps, the wording, "principles derived from a belief in one true GOD,etc." would have been better?
The CON and B.O.R. were based on the principle we had DIVINE RIGHTS. This belief came from belief in GOD and I believe belief in the bible.
Care to start listing them ?
I promise you for every evil thing you think you can say against the bible I can match and exceed it with anything that godless nations have done.
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.