Kicking Against the Pricks

Volley No. 7: A Bitter Kick

Mr. X,

" I learned that one can't even simply admit defeat to an Objectivist without having such a surrender dissected in a 10 page dissertation!"

I am only one individual, and my correspondence should not be taken as representative of what all Objectivists might do given the same circumstances. We are not robots downloading from the mother ship, as it were.

"Can an Objectivist simply say 'thank you' and be done with it? I certainly intend no malice on my part when I say that, you must be a joy to have a simple conversation with."

Thank you? For what? As for being a joy to have a simple conversation with, most people I know on a familiar basis enjoy what they learn by conversing with me, and they make sure to tell me this, young and old alike. Again, this is a question of values. Some people value reason, others do not.

"As for the old Christian 'standard' arguments that have been 'refuted' dozens of times? I don't know...maybe no one's listening, maybe no one cares. Or maybe people just feel safe believing in God."

The latter point, "maybe people just feel safe believing in God," is closer to the truth, but still far enough from it that it requires a little elaboration here. The operative concept in your point here is entailed in the word "feel." It is the error promoted by religious philosophies to elevate emotion above reason and to confuse the former for knowledge. This error is explicitly endorsed in the Bible. For instance, look at Proverbs 1:7, which says "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." The error cannot become any more explicit than this! This is a fundamental error confusing the objective nature of knowledge and the nature of our emotions. Knowledge does not follow from our feelings. I do not suddenly learn how to do differential calculus simply because I feel wonderful one morning. Of course, priests and pastors will say, that's not what is being claimed in the Proverbs verse, all the while failing to provide a "reasonable exegesis" of what that verse is intended to mean while preserving the trash heap built on top of it. But indeed, in essence, that is precisely what is claimed by religion: That emotions should be our guides, not our reason, not our knowledge, but our feelings. And here I think you've stumbled on the problem quite inadvertently, Mr. X. I won't pour any more internet ink on this issue at the moment as I currently have an essay in the works on this very topic! But suffice it to say, yes, this is part of the overall problem. There are other reasons, though, why religion has persisted so long.

"Do you really think society would be better if it were built on Objecivist principles?" [sic]

Absolutely, without hesitation, YES! I do think that. That is why I am an activist for what I believe.

"Over thousands of years, different breeds of Materialism (Objectivism is a form of Materialism, in the broader sense--like it or not.) have attempted and failed to 'enlighten' us to the fallacy of religion. What makes Objectivism any different?"

Objectivism is different because it is true. That's pretty simple. Also, Objectivism is completely different from those others that you mention by virtue of the fact that Objectivism does not allow for any hidden presumptions to go unturned in its fundamentals (such as the common notion that emotions are epistemological primaries not to be questioned or understood in causal terms). Also, Objectivism as a systematic whole is a fully integrated system of philosophy. Objectivism will never rely on innumerable squads of apologists and theologians investing themselves in the hopeless effort of attempting to dovetail its many doctrines together in order to derive a pure product in the end. Indeed, Objectivism will never require such efforts, it is by nature an integrated whole. Furthermore, Objectivism does not begin its foundation with the presumption that man is a guilt-riddled, sniveling and corrupt carcass metaphysically deserving of unrelenting torture for eternity, as Christianity presumes (after all, you can't sell salvation unless you first sell damnation, right?). Objectivism does not hold man guilty by virtue of his existence. Objectivism holds that each individual - that's you and me, Mr. X - has the right to exist for his own sake. The world is hungry for such a philosophy, and they've been served death cultism for thousands of years in place of reason and justice.

These are only a few of the differences. I could go on and on. But that's why my website is still under construction!

Objectivism is the philosophy for the rational man, it is as one philosopher put it "state of the art human reasoning." Ignore it at your own peril, Mr. X.

"Since I don't know anyone, outside of those who subscribe to it, who's ever heard of Objectivism, I think its safe to say that, in time, Objectivism will become yet another philosophical corpse piled up outside the walls of Christianity."

I wouldn't count on it. Objectivism is not yet even 50 years old, regardless of how one would like to misrepresent it as an offshoot of materialism. Objectivism shares no essentials whatsoever with the philosophies of either Hobbes, Hume or Marx, the primary instigators of continental materialist philosophy. But Objectivism is spreading like wildfire, and is finally making definite inroads to academia. As more academic scholars discover Objectivism and incorporate its principles and love of values into their research and instruction, plan on expecting to see some amazing results. You underestimate the power of the human mind when guided by unhindered reasoning. But then again, no one knew what to expect when a group of individuals we now know as the "Founding Fathers" incorporated the idea that the individual has the right to his own life, liberty and the pursuit of his own happiness into the founding doctrine of a new nation. The results are unequaled by any nation whose founding philosophy was a collection of tales and fables from ancient primitives who believed that the sun circled the earth and condemned men to fry on a pyre for challenging that view! Indeed, shame on you, Mr. X, for hiding under the skirts of pious fraudulence!

And what glory is there in collecting philosophical corpses if the carcinogen within those philosophies were nothing more than the very errors spread by Christianity in the first place!???

Don't expect this to happen to Objectivism. We already know that Christian undertakers cannot penetrate its soundness.

"I don't know if you are married, or have any children, but I wonder--if you do, would you die for them?"

What would be gained by this? Do you believe martyrdom is the ultimate way in showing love? This is sickening and perverse!

Good day,

Anton Thorn

___________________________________________________________________