Kicking Against the Pricks

Volley No. 8: The Persistence of Misconstrual

Mr. X,

<< 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. >>

"No, It begins its foundation with the unprovable presumption that mans purpose is to 'live for his own sake'. Tell me again how Miss Rand arrived at this conclusion, and how it can be proved?"

No, Objectivism does not begin its foundation with any moral-political doctrines, such as man's right to exist for his own sake. Objectivism begins its foundations with the axioms, as I have indicated in earlier messages. (Again, the question of the validity of one's starting points is at issue here.) And yes, the idea of man's right to exist for his own sake is elaborated in Rand's well-written and superbly articulated essay "Man's Rights," which can be found in her book The Virtue of Selfishness (chapter 12, pp. 92-100). I would also recommend you examine some of the essays in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Frankly, Mr. X, I wonder if you're genuinely up to doing your own homework here, or if you'd really rather nitpick and try to find the "Achilles' Heel" of Objectivism. Earlier, you mentioned that this was not your intention. Is that so?

Also, if you believe that man does not have the right to exist for his own sake (and negation of Objectivist principles here is completely consistent with religious philosophy, indeed!), you are free to offer your arguments to support your case. Otherwise, admit again that you're in over your head here and make the decision to start learning something here, or take a vow of silence on the matter.

"Considering her life, where and when she was born, it isn't suprising that she would develop a philosophy that promotes 'naked self-interest'" [sic]

No, she advocated rational self-interest. This is repeatedly emphasized and developed throughout her writings. As I requested before: Please do not attempt to misrepresent Objectivism any more than you already have. You've been caught several times doing this, and you've also admitted to the fact that you do not fully grasp Objectivism. Please, Mr. X, in all earnestness here, please attempt to be at least somewhat honest in your correspondence with me.

However, note what you're saying and compare it to what we know of reality. You say that it is not a surprise that a person coming from a state-worshipping society like Soviet Russia would develop a philosophy of self-interest? How many thinkers that come from Soviet Russia developed an integrated philosophy which rationally and solidly defends man's right to exist for himself?

"--she hated authority, specifically governmental authority,"

Correction: Rand hated the capacity of some men to blindly follow authority, whether labeled as "governmental authority" or otherwise. She did not "hate... governmental authority" that was founded on Reason. You err here, Mr. X, and either you know this already, or you insist on mischaracterizing where you do not know. Check your sources!

"and completely despised religion,"

Hold on, Mr. X. Rand despised certain elements of religion (see her interview with Playboy Magazine, for example). Rand recognized religion as man's first steps in the attempt to form a systematic approach to thought. For Rand, religion was primitive (i.e., pre-scientific) philosophy which did not have the benefit of forming under rational circumstances. You are oversimplifying things in order to pass your mischaracterization of them. Bad Mr. X!

"as if it were the cause of so much torment throughout mans history."

Rand identified one of the primary causes of religion's capacity for such destruction and violence against man in her essay "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World," in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It. In this article, Rand develops her argument that 'faith' and force (including coercion and fraud) are corollaries which demand one another. Faith as a "means of knowledge" - as the mystics hold - will always ultimately resort to the threat of force in order to back up the allegation that it is a means of knowledge. And whatever is presented as "knowledge" gained by this alleged means of knowledge must be accepted at gunpoint, either literally or metaphorically.

Hence, this is why in the New Testament, alongside so many passages that insist that its "principles" and "facts" be accepted on the grounds of faith, you will find so many passages about hellfire, eternal suffering and gnashing of teeth (no doubt, you're familiar with these texts). In other words, what is being said in the New Testament, is: "Believe, or go to hell." Thus, knowledge content must be accepted as content irrelevant to whatever facts you discover in reality. This is the bully mentality of the schoolyard, but this is precisely what is advocated by the Bible and other religious "scriptures" (Islam is no different), like it or not.

Ultimately, Mr. X, as you continue in your failure at attacking my views, you will most likely - as so many other religionists have before you - resort to some comment such as "You'll find out one day when you meet your maker, Mr. Thorn! You'll see when you're standing there before God at the Judgment!" This is ultimately the stick that is behind every religious claim, whether the religious want to acknowledge it or not. Never mind, though, threats of force do not work on me, for I recognize that backing up a claim with a threat does not make it true. If only Jesus and St. Paul realized this...

You are also recommended to read the title essay of Rand's brilliant work, For the New Intellectual. Again, Mr. X, if you do not go to the source of Objectivist thought and study these things with an honest attitude on your own part, how do you expect to learn and understand? So far, you have not demonstrated that you're willing to do this at all. Why is that?

"These are the kind of people that Objectivism attracts,"

You mean: People who prefer to think for themselves?

"and why it will never spread to the common man."

Fine. I can turn that to my favor if I like: It takes a uniquely uncommon man to question the beliefs he's been taught to accept since he was a child, beliefs reinforced with the implicit (or explicit) threat of force as the primary motivation for their acceptance. But what's you're point here, Mr. X? We already know you do not accept Objectivist principles (your fault, not mine), and I do. So what's the issue here? What is the point of making such comments? Do you believe such comments are magically going to transform my mind and make me suddenly see the 'light' of your religious views? At some point, you will become very exhausted with the course of inquiry you've chosen to take.

"Objectivism is the 'Esperanto' of philosophy;"

I don't know quite what this is intended to mean. Is this intended to be another cheap attack?

At least in the case of Esperanto, as a deliberately invented language, there is one key essential that it shares with Objectivism: Like Objectivism, Esperanto was crafted for a purpose. Neither Objectivism nor Esperanto can be said to have evolved over a period of centuries, resulting more from an accumulation of participation by an enormous population of constituents, movers and shakers working in the context of diverse goals. In other words, there is no 'accidental' quality to Objectivism, as there is with most religious views. Nor do the principles of Objectivism depend on the assumption of the validity of certain questionable historic events. Objectivism is true because it identifies reality honestly.

"lots of intellectuals subscribe to it, but those outside acedemia just aren't interested." [sic]

Actually, the reverse is true: Most academics scorn Rand's thought because they do not care to abandon their irrational commitments, specifically to popular forms of rationalism, the primacy of consciousness view of reality and the stolen concepts found at its root. Also, most "philosophers" today oblige themselves so unnecessarily and untenably to adhere to persistent, unfounded notions, such as the analytic-synthetic dichotomy (this dichotomy is at root in many of the arguments you passed the other day; few non-Objectivists ever recognize the errors entailed in this dichotomy), so much so that to question them is to alienate oneself from the halls of academia itself. Eventually, this shall change now that there is a key to understanding some of these root errors. And yes, that key is Objectivism, the Philosophy of Reason.

"In Ayn Rand's 'novels' (they can only be called 'novels' by devaluing the term--they are more political commentary than fiction),"

Hmmm.... Which Rand novels have you read, Mr. X? And, do you make this assessment with a full understanding of Rand's aesthetic theory, which presupposes an understanding of all the philosophical principles preceding them, namely her metaphysical, epistemological and moral doctrines? Already you have admitted that so much of Objectivism is over your head and beyond your grasp. But here you still insist on passing judgments as if you had the intimate familiarity and understanding which you already confessed to lacking. Why is this?

"all her 'heroic' beings are portrayed as physically perfect. Since this is an unrealistic view of humanity, how does one in your hypothetical Objectivist society maintain the welfare of those born into it without the long-term ability to care for themselves, such as the mentally retarded, or those born with neurological diseases such as MS, autism, etc.? Will they be euthanised at birth, or will some in your society be forced to live for someone elses interests?" [sic]

Again, your contentions here only bespeak your own lack of familiarity and understanding of Objectivism. Most likely, you have made the same error that many, many apologists for religion have committed: They presuppose prematurely that a certain view is wrong, then set out to try to "prove" their premature verdicts without ever intending to discover the facts of the matter. Rand's characters are not based on what she considered the exception (such as the mentally retarded or those hindered throughout life by disease), but what she admired in men. She intended (and succeeded) to portray genuine heroes who pursued their own rational self-interests; she did not care to portray failures who pointed to their own misery as the excuse of their mediocrity and poor choices - we all see too much of this in life as it is. There is so much literature within the Objectivist corpus that is devoted to the species of Rand's characters and her aesthetic ideals that I don't know where to point you first. Obviously, what is lacking here is an understanding of the foundation of Rand's philosophy.

No Objectivist literature or proponent makes any statement to the effect that children born with diseases or impediments to normal life should be euthanized at birth or forced into some kind of servitude. I don't know what you're reading if this is the impression you want me to think you believe about Objectivism, but it surely is not from the source, Mr. X, and you know that. Again, shame on you for such dishonesty here. If you keep this up, your messages will be deleted in the future.

"When I asked if you would die for your wife and children, it was to determine whether or not an Objectivist could value someone elses life above thier own. Would you let them die if you knew you could protect them at the cost of your own life?" [sic]

Mr. X, who is asking me to die for someone, and for what purpose? Who is asking me to value someone else's life over mine? And for what purpose? What is the context of your question here? Is it merely to show that I do not value those that I value? You are attempting to demonstrate a contradiction if that is the case. Mr. X, please, what is it that you're trying to prove here? Don't you see how ridiculous you're sounding? Take a moment's break, take a deep breath and distance yourself for a moment from your message here. Ask yourself, in sincere, objective honesty: What are you trying to prove here? If you believe that your love will be best shown by your act of self-sacrifice, then that is your belief. I am not trying to change that. I merely think it is wrong, and I've provided plenty of sources already for you to investigate why I hold such an assessment. I do not hold this view (that my love can best be expressed by an act of self-sacrifice). You disagree? Fine. So what? What are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? You provide no argument whatsoever for the "virtues" of your view, let alone define the concept "virtue" as implied by your haphazard position here.

Emergencies are not the norm of my life, and exceptions to normalcy are not the standard of my values. I do not govern the choices and actions by anxieties over notions pertaining to questions like "what would I do if my wife were drowning!?!??!" Instead, I govern my life by the values I pursue to achieve (at my own expense, not at the expense of others) and the principles which make the achievement of those values I choose possible. Do you really have a contention here? Furthermore, I do not have any loved ones that I know of who would demand that I surrender my life for theirs, just as I do not demand that they surrender their life for mine. Your contention above is a naked red herring, Mr. X, and is counterproductive to your own growth as an individual to the extent to which you insist on harping on it.

Perhaps the real crux of the matter is that you would like those who claim to love you to sacrifice themselves for your sake. Is that it? If after all you presume that value for another person is demonstrated by a sacrifice of that value, or by a sacrifice of the standard making that valuation possible, then perhaps you are seeking something you hesitate to identify: the values of others. Those who talk up self-sacrifice are never talking it up in reference to the values that they would surrender were they to practice what they preach. However, it can be expected that those who talk up the ethics of self-sacrifice (such as the "virtue" of martyrdom, etc.) are those who seek to benefit at the sacrifice of others. So much for the pretense of holiness!

"I ignore Objectivism as a personal philosophy because I do not believe it to be 'state of the art human reasoning' if it rejects the true spiritual nature of man." [sic]

I've given you plenty of reason why Objectivism aspires to be "state of the art human reasoning." You have not been able to challenge even one of the points I have offered successfully yet. However, you still reject this. You yourself insisted that I answer how I reject your belief in the supernatural. I gave you numerous reasons. Now you reject something that has been established from a number of angles through rational principles against which not one of your contentions has borne any fruit. Are you willing to stick to your own principles, as stated in your earlier messages, that you should have a good reason to dispute something that I hold (and have established to the point of certainty, to a point warranting your confession that you "give up"?).

Mr. X, in short, you have no arguments here, only emotional tirades. You kick against the pricks. You continue to send me e-mail messages that are fruitless for any ostensible position you are attempting to defend. As a net result, you make yourself look rather foolish. My only question is: Why are you doing this?

Yes, this is getting rather monotonous now. I would ask that you simply accept the fact that you yourself have already stated: that you are ill-equipped to come against me in any way. I know what I stand for, and I know why I stand for it, and I'm quite prepared to argue for it, as you have seen. I mean you no harm by doing so, but in the meantime, I can only hope that you take note of the futile effort you put forth whenever you try to attack my view in particular or the philosophy of Objectivism in general. I am not a mystic, nor am I a man of faith. I am a man of reason, I am an Objectivist. You may have a problem with this. I ask that you now keep your problem to yourself. I do not care to continue correspondence with the whininess your messages have come to resemble.

I think you have far more value you can offer yourself than you are admitting yourself to lay hold to. But I must repeat here: If you do not attempt to maintain some civility and honesty in your characterization of Objectivist thought, but prefer to indulge in baseless mischaracterizations, your messages will be ignored and deleted. I have no obligation to continue our correspondence if you continue to stoop to the ignominious level of your recent message here. You've been asked many questions which you fail to address, and it is obvious that you have not made any attempt to make any legitimate effort to learn about the subject matter here from the source. Thus, I can only conclude that your dishonesty here is intentional. If it persists, I will no longer play.

Please keep this in mind.

Anton Thorn

___________________________________________________________________