RoR: Forum

Good points, let me explain how I’ve been approaching talking to non-Objectivists these days. The key is to be descriptive and win respect – not agreement.

I look for common ground before exploring differences. I generally avoid God and the afterlife – what do I care about a person’s view of the afterlife as long as they agree with or at least respect our views about living this life? The following is a true story.

Last week a co-working, Sean, asked me, out of the blue, if I believed in an afterlife. I told him why I thought it was implausible but quickly added, “decide for your self if it makes sense.” I really had no idea why one would be concerned; I didn’t grow up with religion.

After some banter he added a weightier concern. He said, “If there is no afterlife, why be moral?” Being so secular it took me by surprise (hey I’ve lived my whole life in NYC!). I made plausible why ethics are needed for living and he seemed satisfied. I added that this was not only my viewpoint but it has an important history: the great Hellenic philosophers believed ethical knowledge was possible on a naturalistic basis and fought against the relativist of their day.

The next day another co-worker, Ted, was present when Sean raised the issue again. Ted immediately asked the same question, “Why be moral if there is no afterlife?” Ted is generally a sarcastic SOB so I decided on a different response. I said in a joking manner: “So what you are telling me, Ted, is that you’d like to rape and pillage but the threat of eternal damnation is cramping your lifestyle?” Sean burst out laughing! And to my surprise, Sean gave Ted my answer about why we needed ethics anyway.

I think I won respect for my viewpoint, showed respect for my interlocutors, and may have started Sean thinking. By the way, Sean’s education, from first grade through college, was in Catholic schools.

There are many ways to skin a cat. Rand liked intellectual warfare; I have a different temperament.

Rick

Post 1

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:48pm

Henry,

There are 3 things that I look for when making a value judgment regarding someone's words:

1) accuracy (honest, effective identification)
2) wisdom (insightful understanding of principle)
3) benevolence (life-affirming empowerment)

Regarding this post of yours, and according to these 3 standards of judgment, I must admit that I have not seen much better writing than this.

At home I have a picture of a lighthouse, taken on a foggy night, with a caption below it: "You cannot light another's path without brightening your own" It is truly a pleasure to become aware of the enlightening luminescence that eminates from your expressed thought.

A further word on noncontradictory identification of Bible verse (to be utilized in discussion cautiously, if ever):

... the child rape & murder in the Book of Numbers (kill the little boys in the town, take the little girls who haven't yet "known" a man for yourselves); the pro-capitalism, pro-individualism stance of Isiah 65:22 (you shall not work only so that another may eat); and the ethical egoism of the Son Himself (give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish for his own values in this world and he'll experience the lasting joy of a full life, well-lived) ... and others do definitely validate your discovery of anti-Reason in organized religion, Henry. However, I am still somewhat afraid to attempt to invalidate religion by showing the numerous inescapable contradictions.

Gandhi said that we could learn from all religions (at least partial truth exists in them). While I feel that his sanction-compromise-appeasement attitude on religious freedom is only a temporary solution to a permanent problem, I still do not know how best to proceed with zealots of unreason (Rand's main advice on this matter was to promptly end the discussion - but I not yet convinced that this is the best available option).

Ed

Post 2

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 1:48pm

Rick: GOOD deal! That is what I would consider a "successful outreach" so to speak: you gave them both something to think about, and won yourself some respect in the process.

Ed: Aww, shucks, I'm flattered :)
I never thought anybody would be impressed by what I write. Actually, some people consider me a rather intransagent, unreasonable type person (mostly diehard advocates of "we can't know anything, and you can't tell me my way is any worse than yours!")
The thing we have to remember about most people is: they haven't really thought through the things they've been told, or the system they follow. They are (as Rand would have called it) "second handers". The only way to approach them (without them getting spooked), is to be gentle about it -- until (and unless), that is no longer an option.

Glad you liked it.
Thanks for the nice compliments, I'm sincerely grateful.

Post 3

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 2:03pm

Do you know why Peikoff doesn't wear digital watches ?

Because he's a second-hander.

Ha !

Post 4

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 4:05pm

What I've noticed is that, when people talk about many things, they'll know good reason when they hear it...for example, a coworker was recently talking about how great it was that Bush was giving the elderly cheap prescription medicine. I calmly explained the long-term consequences, and she changed her mind.

But, for some reason, their brains turn off when it comes to religion. It isn't a realm for reason, but for faith. Instead of countering that reason is necessary for life in all aspects, I've found it's better to simply ask, "Why?" and proceed from there. Most people recognize that they're walking into a quagmire after a few more sentences, but they don't hate you for it. From my experience, people either continue evading, or pay you a respect for opening their eyes.

Still no religious converts, but at least their minds are more open to taking a look at their own philosophical systems. And promotion of critical reason not only opposes religion, it also helps keep any future atheists out of the communist-atheist confusion.

Besides, Atheism isn't a central concern of Objectivism; rather, it's a corollary of following reason wherever it's light may shine...it's the shock of the "A" word that thrusts that aspect into prominence.

Post 5

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:22pm

Yep. That's why I think (strangely enough), things like "creation science" are actually a good sign.
Bear with me here:
1. Before, Christians had a tendency to burn each other at the stake (as well as anybody who wasn't christian), over the stupidest little points of doctrine.

2. Now, you can see just how far a (subconsious) respect for reason and science have invaded the cultural paradigm: diehard Creationists are resorting to (heavily-distorted) pseudo-scientific explanations for why they think the planet is 6000 years old, or dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time, etc.

But the point is: they're TRYING. Before (a few centuries back), they wouldn't have even bothered. At least they are looking at it, and TRYING to have it make sense -- even if they do a really bad job of it all.

That indicates that they could maybe be persuaded, or at least nudged, in a better direction.

Post 6

Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 6:47am

When I first discovered objectivism the only thing I had difficulty accepting was atheism. I was literaly convulsed with shock when I read about it. I was temporarily overcome with emotion and just denied it out out flat. Fortunately I came back to it with my brain in gear and gradually accepted the idea.

I think this is the root of the difficulty, when someone has accepted certain beleifs as self-evident e.g. God, Democracy and altruism. Their first response will not be a thought but an emotional reaction. When we read in the news some example of the state of world. Our first response is emotional - we might think about it later.

Post 7

Friday, December 19, 2003 - 2:02am

Some people become absolutely hysterical when they hear something they disagree with. There are plenty of nutters on-line unfortunately. I have posted some of my Libertarian ideas in various public forums and inevitably I get called names like: a right wing fanatic, a moron, an extremist etc. There are people who just start posting quite extreme hate messages and abuse against anyone they disagree with. It seems that when people are hiding behind a computer screen they think they can get away with acting like absolute idiots.

So... I would just like to add that it's lethal to try to argue with Internet trolls.. they're just looking for a fight. If someone on the net starts being abusive, the only recourse is to get the moderators to deal with it, and if they don't, black-list the forum in question and have no more dealing with it.

I don't think Internet forums are good places fro debate. Face to face is much better. If someone is talking to you face-to-face, they won't start throwing abuse at you, because if they do they know they might get their head smacked in.

Post 8

Friday, December 19, 2003 - 5:48am

I agree with Marc. I've found no shortage of abusive SOBs. Here's a point I keep in mind: address the silent reader first.

Let the idiots rant and rave, but put forth your view simply and with logic. Make a respectable case. The silent reader, one who might be sitting on the fence but open to your ideas, will be impressed with your coherence. This brings respect for our position and makes the other guy look like a fool.

There was one guy on a TV network board that I argued for weeks (Chris, the onion farmer who wanted more subsidies). He even admitted that he was abusive because that's the way you win on the Internet - intimidation rules. When I finally confessed that I was never arguing with him, that I was writing for the silent reader and allowing him, Chris, to show how his side is full of ranting idiots, he never posted again.

Of course, this kind of battle is not for everybody. And I, too, would much rather explore differences among people who are in the same general ballpark (or soccer stadium for you people outside the US). I consider the people on this board, even when I appear to be disagreeing, to be kindred spirits. (Damn, a statement like that might get me banished to Tolerationist City.) OK, almost all. (That’s right, "No. 6", you and me in the schoolyard after class! LOL)

Post 9

Friday, December 19, 2003 - 7:26pm

Yep. That brings up a weird thing that just happened:
Vertigo. He seems (from what's going on in the other thread), to have gone from a complete spammerTroll (or at least looking like one), to something resembling dialog. I think it turned the corner when we got him to admit that he didn't really know anything about what we were about.

Post 10

Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 6:38am

I don't get the sense that objectivism is something that people "come around to". Most people I know who are rational have been so all their lives, even before they knew what objectivism is. In this way, there are people who "get it", and those who don't. To be honest, I don't waste a lot of intellectual energy trying to explain or convince others of my personal philosophy anymore. I met with the same consternation as you have, earlier in life, and have since concluded the world can be divided into "us" and "them". I try to surround myself with "us" and generally ignore "them". I found the effort to be largely wasted.

Post 11

Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 9:28am

Tbrad: Yeah, admittedly there's some of that, but at least in my case, there was/is a definite evolution towards Objectivism.

Post 12

Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 11:30am

Mr. Emrich,

An excellent article filled with relevant observations and conclusions. May I have your permission to reprint it on The Rational Argumentator?

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 13

Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 5:57pm

Go right ahead, Mr. Stolyarov. Glad you liked it.

Post 14

Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 9:07pm

Mr. Stolyarov:
After having read several articles on "rational argumentator", I must respectfully refuse your kindly offer to reprint my article submission.
While I respect what you are doing, I simply do not agree with many of your points. We may agree on fundamentals (Reality, Reason, Rights, etc.), but to be frank, some of your stances run exactly counter to my own conclusions on various subjects:

As such, I do not wish to be reprinted on "Rational argumentator" at this time. Thank you for your generous offer. I hope my refusal will not close off the lines of dialog between us. It is simply a matter that we dissagree on the application of Objectivist principles.

For instance:
1. Your "Objectivist condemnation of abortion", while sincere and quite well-reasoned, fails to address the very real possibility that in protecting fetal existence (and granting "fetal rights"), the State would be given excessive powers, far beyond it's legitimate mandate of protecting individual rights. Limited government (at least to my way of understanding), would not legitimately be empowered to FORCE a woman to continue a pregnancy she did not want. -- as was amply illustrated by the lamentable "back alley abortion" phenomenon of United States history, prior to the "Roe V. Wade" decision).

Additionally, "Abortion laws" (like all such intrusions), neccesitate unacceptable levels of State scrutiny in the very personal matter of sexual and reproductive conduct. Similar infringements are implicit, as would (and have) occcured because of so-called "sodomy" laws in several US states.
In the case of Abortion (just as with many other "lamentable" personal practices) there is no way to enforce laws against it, without setting up a chain-reaction of Government expansion which would undercut everything that "limited government" is meant to prevent.

2. You subtitle "rational argumentator" to be 'a journal for Western Man', the implication being that Objectivist values (Reality, Rights, Reason, limited government, etc.) are specifically "Western" and/or for European populations exclusively. I do not, by any means, wish to cast aspersions upon you, but there is a somewhat Racist undertone to your presentation which I think is inadvertent.
By presenting the cultural issues relevant to Objectivist values, as specificaly a "Western" phenomenon, are you not in effect handing the Postmodernists and "multiculturalists" the entire issue on a silver platter -- conceeding that indeed they are RIGHT when they assert that those specific values we hold dear are in fact "Western Eurocentric conceits", and that maybe other populations are not suited to that cultural method?
This is exactly the issue raised when Multiculturalists state that "non-western" values (such as collectivism, theocracy, hereditary castes, female genital mutilation, etc), are of equal value, simply because they originate in Non-Western cultures.

Thank you again for your interest. However, I must ask (insist?) that you do not post the article to your website. If you have begun to do so, please cease immediately.

Thank you again,
Kind regards,
H.

Post 15

Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 5:58pm

Mr. Emrich,

Though I shall honor your right to refuse publication of your article on The Rational Argumnentator, I must point out a key contradiction in your reasons for refusing it.

I refer you to your own eloquently written work: "Coalition: the Problems and the Promise," where you stated that Objectivists who differ on peripheral views even with such different thinkers as Deists or Anarchists should still capitalize on fundamental agreements and coordinate efforts for the creation of a freer society that recognizes the inalienable rights of man. I agree in full. We are closer in our views than any one of us is to a Deist or Anarchist, and some divergence is inevitable between any two individuals. Yet if we withhold intellectual information from one another just due to disagreements on issues barely related to the article whose publication I had requested, how does that not perpetuate the schismatic barrier-building mentality that you so criticized?

Even the Ayn Rand Institute, famous for its withholding of "the moral sanction" from men such as David Kelley, nevertheless permits The Rational Argumentator to reprint its works (in dozens of instances, I must add). Will you, Mr. Emrich, the avowed champion of toleration and coalition-building, assume a position even more orthodox that that of Leonard Peikoff himself?

The Rational Argumentator certainly does not limit itself to viewpoints that agree 100% with those of the editorial staff. Even internal disagreements are welcome and publicized. See for example "Daleford v. Stolyarov: A Euthanasia Debate"

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

Or Dr. Richard Parker's treatise IN DEFENSE of abortion, which TRA has nevertheless published due to its commitment as being a forum for discourse and argumentation rather than a bastion of orthodoxy preaching unconditional acceptance.

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

The philosophy of my publication has always been to permit essentially rational readers to judge every controversy for themselves based on the presentation of thoughtful arguments from any side that wishes to do so. I have even published discussions with persons of rather left-wing viewpoints, in which I permitted them to have their full word and engaged their ideas as best I could using Objectivist principles.

To respond to your second contention, I follow the insightful tactic suggested by an ardent individualist, Objectivist philosopher Michael Miller of Quackgrass Press. Miller points out that the multiculturalist left derives much of its strength from inventing smear terms against the men of reason and casually hurling them around, rendering them taboo for rational men to use. "No, no, of course we're not Eurocentric imperialists," the multiculturalists would expect us to say, cowering. Even the word "western" has been morphed into a somewhat derogatory expression. The way to combat these smear terms is to do what Ayn Rand did with "selfishness," to wear the terms as badges of honor and proudly define them as concepts supporting your cause. I have worked at reconstituting the terms "western," "eurocentrism," and "imperialism" in this manner.

Before you accuse me of racism or conceding any issue whatsoever to the post-modernists, I suggest that you read TRA's Manifesto, a powerful summary of its purpose, as well as my essay: "Anti-Imperialism: The Smear Campaign Against Western Values"

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

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

I hope that, as a man who thinks and rejects the "all-or-nothing" mindset of the orthodoxy, you will reconsider the publication of your article on The Rational Argumentator.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 16

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 11:56am

Mr. Stolyarov:
Sincere thanks for your reply. I have indeed reconsidered the publication of my article. Proceed, by all means!
You very eloquently addressed both of my concerns, and provided me with evidence to support the rationality of your publication.
Mr. Miller of Quackgrass fame, is indeed heroic person, doing the best he can, to get the message out. I must admit that I have internalized some of the reflexive distrust of certain "politically-incorrect" terms such as "Western" and "Eurocentric". My apologies.

Thank you for the interest in reprinting my article. Now that I have a firmer understanding of what Rational argumentator stands for, I am willing to participate, if the option is still open.

Thank you again for the kind and prompt reply. Reasonable men can, and indeed WILL, dissagree, and our viewpoints are most assuredly closer than otherwise.

(By the way: the Peikoff comparison was inspired!) :)

Cheers, and many happy returns!

Post 17

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 1:52pm

Mr. Emrich,

Thank you for changing your decision in light of the evidence. I have published your article as the opening piece of Issue XIX of TRA. You can see the issue page at http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/index19.html

and the article itself at
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/whytheyfearus.html

I wish you a happy holiday season and anticipate many more cooperative exchanges between us. If you should ever wish to submit others of your works to TRA, I shall be more than glad to post them.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 18

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 4:45pm

Thank you, Mr. Stolyarov!
You are truly a gentlman, and a credit to our mutual cause.

Post 19

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 1:41pm