Kicking Against the Pricks

Volley No. 6: The Great Concession

Mr. X,

Sorry for this message coming back so late. Things have been pretty busy for me, I'm sure you'll understand.

Anyway, you made a few comments in your last message to me that I would like to respond to below.

"Ok, I admit it. You got me. Although I would consider myself more than moderately intelligent, I confess that the logic of Objectivism is quite beyond me; perhaps it is because of my adamant belief that it is man's nature and purpose to reach beyond the mere physically observable reality that I cannot see how this seemingly limiting philosophy of Objectivism could possibly benefit mankind. You are indeed a skilled debater; it is clear that you have devoted much time to the study of reason--an admirable quest, to be sure. You have shown me that, as a debater, my reasoning skills are severely lacking. I am confident however, that in time, Objectivism will be shown to be inadequate for Man to achieve his full potential, but certainly not by me!"

Mr. X, look at what you're saying. First you acknowledge that your familiarity with Objectivism is inadequate when you write "I confess that the logic of Objectivism is quite beyond me." Then you write "I am confident however, that in time, Objectivism will be shown to be inadequate for Man to achieve his full potential." Can both these statements be integrated without some presumption rooting either finding themselves in contradiction? When you admit that your familiarity of something is insufficient to achieve a firm grasp of its principles, how can you presume that it is in error? If "the logic of Objectivism is quite beyond" you, then it is very hasty to dismiss Objectivism and claim confidence that one day it will be "shown to be inadequate for Man to achieve his full potential." Again, what is meant here by "full potential" is open to many paradigms of interpretation, but again, I would choose the Objectivist ideas of what Man's full potential may be.

Also, I would remind you that, in accordance with what you yourself pointed out ("Objectivism is... extraordinarily limiting..." - Feb. 16), that any opinions I would have about Man's full potential would be restricted to the context of reality (i.e., "this reality" - the reality of flesh and blood, mind and reason). An Objectivist has no interest in magic kingdoms that allegedly lie beyond the grave. Objectivists are not worshippers of death, nor do they consider death to be a doorway transitioning to some other realm or court of judgment. Life is far too precious to Objectivists to diminish its value with such notions.

You had written: "You have shown me that, as a debater, my reasoning skills are severely lacking." I think what's lacking, Mr. X, is a clear purpose in mind, as well as either a reluctance or unwillingness to think things through and to question the premises of your comments and arguments. In regard to the former matter (your purpose), this is a mystery to me, as you have not declared it. I do not know what it is you are setting out to accomplish in your correspondence with me, and I wonder if you do, too. I simply do not know, and would rather not draw any firm conclusions on this matter at this time. Perhaps you can illuminate me here.

And in regard to the latter issue (questioning premises), it would be advisable for you to think about your starting points. This is something people usually take for granted in their thinking, and therefore whatever assumptions may ultimately be found at the base of your thoughts may be murky, erroneous and incoherent ideas. How will you know unless you identify them and test them for their validity? So long as your starting points reside in the realm of the ambiguous or uncertain, how can any conclusion stemming ultimately from them fair any better? This is one of the most beautiful points, I find, in the philosophy of Objectivism: its insistence on making explicit that which is usually implicit or taken for granted. Indeed, this is one of the keys to the success of my ability to debate with you: I never lose sight of my starting points.

In fairness, I would declare that my purpose in reciprocating correspondence with you would be, not to belittle you, or to demonstrate some rehearsed prowess on my part, but to inquire on your method of reasoning and the validity of the conclusions you have thus far passed. This is the real heart of the matter at issue in any debate between the religious and the non-religious. What is your method? What are your starting points? Etc. If you're goal is Z, what is your starting point A? I assumed from your lack of acute familiarity with Objectivist principles that much of the material I have to share with you is quite novel to you. After all, we are not born with Objectivist principles floating in our heads; they must be learned, they must be learned somehow. How is Mr. X going learn about Objectivism, a philosophy which someday he may consider valid and true, if persons like Anton Thorn refrain from seizing the opportunity of explaining its principles and directing him to further sources, once he's shown interest in Objectivism? You showed interest. I responded as I best know how. No hostility, hubris or belittlement was intended.

I've been at this for quite a while, Mr. X, so it's only expected that you may find my reasoning abilities - "on the turf" of Objectivism - to be severe. That's why I started my website. I have a lot to say on the subject matter I've chosen to take on. But just because I am good at what I do does not itself mean that my position is right; at least, don't take it from me, learn to inquire on these things yourself. Besides, I do not see this as an issue of "who's right" so much as it is an issue of "what's right." Does that make sense?

Often that which is taken for granted in one philosophy is subjected to penetrating scrutiny in another philosophy. Thus, when learning (or acquiring) a new philosophical outlook, many presumptions which were accepted in one view are completely turned on their head when wrestling with and trying to grasp new principles. Newcomers to Objectivism are likely to experience such a clearing of the slate, as this is crucial to objectivity. Furthermore, onlookers who are unfamiliar with the whole integration of Objectivism may easily be puzzled or repulsed by Objectivism's fundamentals, particularly if they resist allowing their unargued presumptions from being scrutinized or challenged. In the case of those who prefer to cling to such premises in thinking, Objectivism is not for them.

"My purpose here was, in truth, not to attempt to find the 'Achilles Heel' of Objectivism; I have several acquaintances who subscribe to the Objectivist philosophy, and know first-hand how pointless it is to argue for the metaphysical. My original intention was to test my knowledge of Christian thought--to see if I could demonstrate how I came to my faith through reason, not blind obedience. This purpose was immediately blindsided by the fact that we could not find common ground as to what defines 'reality', so the argument degraded into meaningless bickering."

As for being "blindsided by the fact that we could not find common ground as to what defines 'reality'," I think you're right to point this out as a substantial stumblingblock to the progress of our correspondence toward any mutual conclusion. I have already laid out my definition of 'reality' on the table: Reality is the realm of existence. I do not know what definition you presume when you speak of reality. This goes back to my point about presumptions, and whether or not one has identified and challenged them. There is a pervasive tendency among most philosophies to flee from offering stable definitions for terms like 'reality' simply because defining such a fundamental concept would obligate any conclusions to the understanding of reality so defined, if one attempts to integrate philosophical principles consistently and without contradiction.

My guestimation is that you have learned a lot through our correspondence. The questions are: What have you learned? and What are you going to do with what you learned?

"I'm sure there are no shortages of Christian apologists lining up to show you that you are wrong, but I would wager that not one among them has any real clue as to what they believe, or even why, let alone defend their beliefs. Most of them will be Protestant or Fundamentalists, each with a wildly different interpretation of Scripture; each convinced they are right. They do not consider their faith in the light of reason, in fact, they do not 'think' about it at all, instead preferring to be 'moved by the Spirit'. This is the true fatal flaw in their attempts to refute Objectivism. For the record, I am Catholic, therefore do not generally agree with anything a Protestant or Fundamentalist says regarding Scripture; they believe heavily in 'scripture alone' Christianity and 'personal' interpretation of Scripture, which accounts for, not hundreds (as you speculated in a previous address), but thousands of different Protestant sects. Catholics do not believe in 'predestination' as the Calvinists do, as this goes directly against Scripture. I believe that you asked for a Scriptural basis for the Christian tenet of 'freewill', so here goes: Sirach 15:11-15 "Do not say, 'It was the Lord's doing that I fell away'; for he does not do what he hates. Do not say, 'It was he who led me astray'; for he has no need of the sinful. The Lord hates all abominations; such things are not loved by those who fear him. It was he who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep his commandments, and to act faithfully in a manner of your own choice.' (Although specifically expressed here, freewill is implied throughout the Bible, since if Man did not have freewill, he would never have sinned in the first place. ) I would wager that you haven't had many Catholics attempt to refute Objectivism, if any at all. Catholics have little interest in fringe philosophies (I say 'fringe' because I could find no information on Objectivism in any widely accepted reference material, most notably Encyclopedia Britanica), unless they attempt to change Church doctrine from within."

I believe you are correct that most of those Christians who have written me to challenge my views have been of the Protestant view of Christianity. However, I have encountered some Catholics and have found from my encounters that Catholics ironically tend to be a little more tolerant of opposing views than most of the Protestants I have corresponded with. (This is particularly true in view of the die-hard Calvinists who have approached me.) While it is for the most part the case that most (if not all) Christians who have approached me are convinced that they are right (even in spite of the fact that most are completely unaware of the vast scope and nature of Objectivism), I doubt most would agree with your statement that "they do not consider their faith in the light of reason," or that "they do not 'think' about it at all." I have subscribed to several e-mail lists, as fora for debate among religionists (primarily Christians) with either other religionists (again, primarily Christians) or non-religious (often self-professed atheists). While I have seen some great effort (and in some cases a high degree of eloquence) to put forth a good deal of thought on the matters debated (usually apologetic arguments), I see many errors in their thinking, often more than I can count on all my fingers and toes! But indeed, a great amount of effort is seen in thinking about these issues. Then again, a lot of it is veiled self-congratulation among fellow believers.

"One interesting question I have regarding your philosophy is: How do children fit into the equation? They are helpless until a certain age, so how do you raise children in this philosophy without compromising your own self-interest, or 'sacrificing' yourself to their needs?"

I think this is a good question, and I believe Objectivism is fully prepared to make a rational response to such questions quite possible.

This is a question of values. According to Objectivism, a value is that which one acts to again and/or keep.

Is a child one elects to father or mother a value to that person? Yes or no?

Assuming a child is a value to the person who chooses to father or mother that child, what is the value that is placed on that person? Is this value a strong value, or a weak value?

What is the standard of value placed on the child of the parent?

It is true that a child is "helpless until a certain age." There is no question that a child cannot act on its own effort to provide value to its parent; its value is its very life itself.

Does having a child necessitate sacrifice on the part of the parent? Such a question depends on the values of the parent. This varies from parent to parent.

In the case of an Objectivist (i.e., according to Objectivist philosophy), any person who chooses to parent a child does so because it is his/her value to have that child.

Sacrifice is the surrender of a higher value for the sake of a lesser value, or a non-value. For instance, a sacrifice would be surrendering a fifty-dollar bill in exchange for a ten-dollar bill. In any instance of a sacrifice, a greater value is lossed for the sake of gaining something that is valued less, or for something that is not valued at all. Would you spend fifty dollars on a wad of lint? I doubt it. But if you valued the fifty dollars, as a substantive representative of your effort, *more* than you valued a piece of lint (it would be amazing if you valued a piece of lint to begin with), then giving that fifty dollars up for the sake of gaining the piece of lint would constitute a sacrifice. I use this example - although admittedly extreme - as an example of what is meant by 'sacrifice' according to the Objectivist ethics.

Similarly, consider the costs of raising a child. A child cannot provide its food, for instance. But the parent (assuming a rational parent who chose to have the child) will value the life of the child more than the expense of what it costs to feed the child. Thus, the expense of feeding the child is not a sacrifice for this person. The same with clothing the child, or taking the child on medical visits in order to ensure its health. None of these expenses, so long as the child is valued more than the expense of clothing and insuring the child against disease, is an instance of sacrifice, according to the Objectivist ethics. According to Objectivist ethics, sacrifice is never moral since sacrifice leads to the loss, or surrender, of values, not to their achievement or their security.

According to Objectivism, raising a family is not a moral duty. One is not obligated to bring children into the world if he/she does not choose to do so. One does not even have an obligation to marry, if he/she does not choose to. Objectivism does not operate on the "divine command" theory of ethics, nor does it operate on the ethics of self-sacrifice.

Should a person choose to have a child, it is his/her choice to do so which brings moral responsibility. The one who chooses to parent a child accepts the responsibility for that child's welfare until it is able to fend for its own (for the most part, until it is an adult). This responsibility is not a duty, but a chosen action, chosen on the basis of what the parent(s) hold as values for themselves. As such, the Objectivist parent raises his/her child(ren) with relish, not with regrets. It is always a question of what serves as a person's standard of values, and what values inform that person's happiness. Happiness, according to Rand, is:

Objectivists do not see themselves as mindless automatons which must be programmed by commands. It is not the fear of punishment or "divine disapproval" which motivates an Objectivist to moral action, but his pursuit of values and his love for his own life. Commands are good for dogs, computers and sheep, not for independent men.

How would raising a child require sacrificing one's values? If a child's value to the parent is less significant than the value the parent places on something else, say, a night out with friends or a sporting event, for example, and that parent chooses to stay home and take care of his sick child instead of going out with friends or attending the sporting event, then this would constitute a sacrifice. What does the person value more? The child, or the recreational event? If the latter (recreation) is valued more than the former (the child), and tending to the former (the child) results in the expense of the latter (the parent must forego his recreation), then a sacrifice is engendered.

But this is unlikely in the case of an Objectivist who values his child's welfare over the immediate, short-range thrills one gets on a night out with friends or by attending a sporting event. Objectivists consider their values in terms of the long range. What parent is going to place a higher value on a night out on the town over his child's welfare? What parent is going to place a higher value on attending a sports performance over the welfare of his child? This same parent who claims that taking care of his sick kid constitutes a sacrifice.

Raising a child is a profoundly selfish activity of one's life. It demands a crucial and rigorous understanding of one's own values. Many parents are quite unfit for parenting, precisely because they have no clear, explicit understanding of what their values are and why they are held. For more details on the principles I mention here, I suggest you examine Rand's theory of morality in her book The Virtue of Selfishness, particularly chapters one "The Objectivist Ethics" and three "The Ethics of Emergencies."

But I think that's a good question you ask.

"You asked me many questions in past remarks, and for the most part I ignored them while I foolishly attempted to prove a contradiction in your philosophy. I will endeavor to answer them in time, but I can assume that my answers will serve no purpose other than amusement for you. But perhaps I can give you more reasonable answers than you are accustomed to, and that alone will prove that not all Christians are without some amount of reason."

You will not be able to find a contradiction within the philosophy of Objectivism as authored by Rand. It is a wholly integrated system of principles, from its founding metaphysical doctrines to its doctrines on aesthetics and art. Rand made this possible by refusing to leave even one stone of presumption unturned in her effort to eradicate the implicit, the contradictory and the fallacious from her system of thought.

I cannot say how your answers to my questions will impress me until you have passed them. Until then, I think it premature for either of us to dismiss my impression as one of amusement until we have more facts to go on in making such an assessment. Furthermore, I would suggest you resist projecting your inclinations onto me, for we have it on the record that in response to my extended answers to your questions have been dismissed as "merely semantics" in your previous messages. This was done in spite of the fact that you refrained from engaging my answers on a point-by-point basis, as I have done so diligently in the case of your new points.

I don't doubt that you are capable of rational thought and action, and proceed on a rational basis in much of your daily activity. This is probably most sharply evident in any mundane goal-oriented tasks in which you partake. Rationality cannot be divorced from goal achievement. If, for example, you want to pour a glass of milk, you would reach in the cupboard to pull out a clean glass, and reach into the refrigerator to pull out the carton of milk. You probably do this almost automatically now, without a lot of conscious effort, because you've done it so many times. But this activity had to be learned.

Watch a child struggling with this task for the first time, and you'll see how much care he may put into an action which you now take for granted. The child may very carefully and self-consciously reach into the cupboard to select which glass he wants, and carefully grasps it with both hands. He sets the glass down on the counter with great effort not to drop it or let it break.

Then he goes to the refrigerator to find a carton of milk whose weight pushes the strength of the little child's arms and hands to their limit, gently and carefully removing it from the shelf in the refrigerator and transporting it to the counter where the glass is. Every action in the entire process is performed with an acuity of effort to do it as he's seen it done by others so effortlessly, but he has no fluency of execution yet, as the adults around him do.

Finally, he successfully pours some milk into the glass, and he has his reward, reward for his careful effort. It is easy for you and me to sit back and dismiss such a daily, mundane function as just that. But for the child learning this for the first time, he's implicitly learning a lesson which is far more profound than simply pouring a glass of milk. He's learning how goals in reality require his reasoned effort.

Consider what it was like learning to drive an automobile for the first time (I'm assuming you've done this). This was a far more complicated use of effort than learning how to pour a glass of milk for the first time, but the same constants are in place: the achievement of a goal requires our perception of the entities in existence which we use to achieve that goal, and we must apply our thought in a rational manner to the effort which will make achievement of that goal possible given our access to those objects which we perceive. The pursuit of a goal presupposes a code of values, however implicit or inarticulate that code may be. But suffice it to say, how can one go about selecting and attempting to achieve a goal unless one has some purpose in mind which this goal is intended eventually to fulfill?

Consider these facts in the context of buying groceries, getting an education, running a business, raising a family of children and living a fulfilled, happy life. Any endeavor which you undertake will have some feature about it which is a goal you are attempting to achieve, and which requires your reasoned effort in order to achieve it. This is why man needs a philosophy, because he cannot escape his life's need for values and a means of coping with reality. This is known in Objectivism as dealing on the primacy of existence view of reality. In consists of treating existence as an absolute (which it is) and not subject to our whims or faith declarations (e.g., wishing mountains [Matt. 17:20] and sycamine trees [Luke 17:6] to cast themselves into the sea).

How does believing in a 'supernatural reality' make coping with (this) reality by means of reason any more effective than without believing such superstitions? How does belief in the supernatural make choosing and pursuing goals any more cogent than without such beliefs? Does belief in the supernatural in anyway help you achieve values and goals that cannot be achieved by simply accepting and dealing with reality (i.e., the realm of existence) on its own terms? Objectivism argues that, not only do such beliefs do nothing to assist man in the achievement of his values, such beliefs actually undermine man's ability to deal with reality and pursue his values to the degree that they are taken seriously and applied consistently.

"p.s.--As someone who insists on speaking of themselves in the third person, I am aware you already think very highly of yourself, therefore it is with much apprehension that I humble myself to your superior debating skills; I certainly don't want to be responsible for making your ego any bigger than it already is."

The size of my ego should not be your concern. It may please you to know that I am reminded on a daily basis of my fallibility and capacity for error. I do not see this as a fault, however. In fact, it is because man is fallible and capable of error that he requires a rational system of thought. Since it is possible that an identification of a fact, an assessment of a relationship, or a judgment of one's own or another's character can be wrong (i.e., not correspondent with the facts of reality), it is necessary that we endeavor to discover a means of identifying, assessing and judging the facts of reality that can protect us from error or inaccuracy. I am acutely aware of this fact, that is why I love Objectivism so much.

As for referring to myself in the third person (e.g., "Thorn responds:"), I do this to preserve clarity and continuity in our correspondence. Since our internet carriers are different, and since I normally copy my correspondence to MS Word documents for saving, I have found that the best way to clarify who says what is to identify changes of author explicitly. I have seen many attempt to do this using color or font changes, but these distinctions are lost between most internet servers, and they do not carry over automatically to MS Word, I have chosen not to rely on those means of distinguishing who writes what in my correspondence. Also, since I usually have something I'd like to respond to each of your statements (I know, many find it annoying that I always have something more to say...), I find it necessary to break the message up into blocks and deal with the issues as they are presented.

And yes, I do think highly of myself. I began as a clump of zygote cells and have formed myself (yes, with much assistance along the way) into the reasonable being that I now am. I'm very proud of my accomplishments, and am motivated to pursue even greater ones than those I've already achieved. After all, it is my life and my mind, and I refuse to rely on others valuing my mind for lack of content and instead prefer to value what I have and build with it. In short, I have a mind and I'm not ashamed to use it.

"I was trolling for information useful in compiling my 'reasons for my beliefs', and found this. It's a far better argument than I could ever hope to give, and I thought you might find it interesting. I know I will be excited to see how you pick this apart!"

Also, I would point you to some of the books I mentioned in my earlier messages, most notably George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, Douglas Krueger's Atheism: A Short Introduction and, for a tremendously detailed investigation, Michael Martin's mammoth Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Each of the arguments presented on the page you sent me, as well as numerous other theistic arguments, are dealt with quite conclusively in these and many other works on the subject. I recommend you check them out if you really believe the arguments you sent actually achieve what they purport to achieve. Therefore, since I have no intention of spending my precious time and energy doing what has already been done and is readily available to you, I'm afraid I have to disappoint you, for I am not going to go into detail why these arguments are unsound. If you're truly interested, you will check out some of the sources to which I've already referred you.

But again, Mr. X, I must remind you that you yourself admitted that you could not prove these claims. You mentioned that it was a matter of faith. Now you present arguments attempting to justify the belief in the supernatural on grounds of reason. This is a rather fickle attitude, don't you agree?

Anyway, I have lots more to write, but I must close for now. I wish you a pleasant week.

Best regards,

Anton Thorn

___________________________________________________________________