RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Daily Linz 15 - This Cheek's Not For Turning

Tuesday
October 25, 2005

Daily Linz 15 - This Cheek's Not For Turning by Lindsay Perigo

Michael wants to do his bit in ushering in the age of the soft-sell and bringing an end to religion-“bashing.” Well, if he were advocating clarity without dogmatism, KASS without hysteria, reasonableness without appeasement, I would agree with him. But as far as I can tell, he’s pitching for an Objectivism that is New-Aged to the point where it is not only unrecognisable as Objectivism, but is antithetical to it. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (122 messages)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:35pm

The principle of "turn the other cheek" that religions hold dear is essentially one of self-immolation. Objectivism abhors that idea.

I don't think Objectivism can be "sold" to a truly religious person (i.e., anyone who attends a church every week and takes scripture seriously). To integrate Objectivism into his own life, a religious man would need to change his epistemology. It doesn't matter that a Christian is also an engineer; that only proves that his mind is divided between reason and faith. Objectivism requires rejecting faith as one's basis for belief in anything.

It's not impossible for a once religious individual to adopt Objectivism. But I don't think that's going to happen by drawing strained parallels between the teachings of Jesus Christ and that of Ayn Rand. Lindsay was right to be disturbed by that.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:42pm

I believe Michael was 14 when the repeated cheek-beating occurred. He took ideas very seriously, believing literally what he'd been taught about religion. He had not been exposed to more rational ideas at the time and was developing for himself a moral code for how a person should conduct his life using the (religious) material he had to work with.

I give him credit, at the age of 14 for:

1. Taking ideas very seriously
2. Attempting to live a moral life

and especially for

3. Questioning the whole religious enterprise he'd taken so seriously upon receiving the enormous amount of disconfirming data the repeated cheek-beating, and the subsequent hypocrisy it exposed in his church provided.

Remember, he was a young adolescent -- don't judge him by the standards you would apply to a middle-aged man. He made a terrible mistake by allowing the beating -- but he learned much from making it.
Learning from mistakes (checking one's premises) is, after all a rather important virtue.

Steve

(Edited by Steven H. Shmurak on 10/25, 7:44pm)

(Edited by Steven H. Shmurak on 10/25, 7:45pm)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:51pm

=Start of thread hijack=

Just to clarify my thoughts on cheek-turning as a tactic.

There ain't no point in creating the appearance of cheek-turning if you haven't already made preparations for kicking your opponent's butt ahead of time.

As a ruse it only really works to allow you to recover from a surprise - if you wait longer than that your "pseudo"-appeasment only allows your opponent to gain strength - as happened with Chamberlain and Germany. By gifting the Nazi's the Sudetenland he also gifted Hitler the Czech's heavy industries. Czech-made tanks were used to spear-head the invasions of Poland, France, Russia, etc etc etc

Linz also wrote:

"... for instance, it's claimed that Chamberlain gave Hitler Sudetenland to buy time to rearm Britain for the war he knew by this time was inevitable. "

Chamberlain's actions were craven & cowardly. The Czechoslovak army, fighting in mountainous terrain - bolstered by Britain and possibly Russia & France - would have stood a good chance of giving the 1936 model Whermarcht a damn good hiding if that pissy little tosser had grown some balls.

=End of thread hijack= :-)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:00pm

I think it only works when one is already down, and unable to effectively fight back, to draw other's attention: "Hey, look! This guy hit me, I'm not fighting back!" Will the guy still hit him with a crowd looking? People fancy the underdog...and then maybe he can get the crowd to kick the other guy's ass.

Otherwise, there's no reason to turn the other cheek.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/25, 8:25pm)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:25pm

And now I've read MSK's article I can say that he wrote a hell of a lot only to conclude that "cheek-turning can be an effective tactic (for selling objectivism) sometimes."

And I have to say that I disagree with him entirely. If someone attacks me or makes some outlandish claim that offends my sense of right and wrong, by Christ I'm going to say or do something. What that something is will depend on the context of the situation.

I may moderate my tone or method, but I will not intentionally dilute my meaning or play down the implications of what I say - just to make things paletable for the other guy.

I mean do I really believe that I'm right or what? And if I don't what the hell am I doing talking? I should be resolving my doubts - "checking my premises" as someone once said! So fuck watering down my beliefs in the name of popularity!!!

And MSK, I disagree with your characterizing King/Ghandi and their brethren as being "cheek-turners." They sought to use their opponents aggression and strength against them. By using passive resistance they put the brutality of their oppressors in the most stark contrast possible.

They didn't refrain from violence to appease the sensibility of the silent middle-class whites. They refrained from violence to allow the racists to show their true colours and pull the rug out from those who would excuse the brutality of the authorities on the grounds that the blacks were fighting too. You've got to remember that King saw no value in the destruction that follows civil war - As far as I can recall, all King wanted was (what he percieved to be) a level playing field in the system he was an unequal part of.

Passive resistance in this instance isn't turning the other cheek, it's boxing smart.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 10/25, 8:43pm)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 10:47pm

Len Rasch, in an excellent first post, wrote:

Finally, I have to admit that I keep asking myself why we would even bother to look for common points, pulled out of context? If we find 100 of them, what does that prove?

This is a great question. I've noticed a strange habit among some Objectivists of trying to make the philosophy palatable to our ideological enemies, and I think there was definitely a strain of that running through MSK's latest article. (By the way, I had much the same reaction as Linz while editing it.) Given the current philosophical and ethical state of our culture, it's an impossible project. Whatever philosophy you succeed in convincing your opponent (ahem, your "misguided fellow human being in need of a benevolent reeducation") to adopt will be so diluted and altered it will hardly even resemble Objectivism. (The day of the hard sell is definitely not over.)

"Turning the other cheek" is an excellent example. In broad terms, it describes the downright evil Christian idea that the man who surrenders to an aggressor is morally superior to the one who resists him. There are thousands of pages in Rand's novels and writings that demonstrate in stark terms that the truth is exactly the opposite.

As Len asks, what's the point of going through all these mental contortions, of trying to reconcile Objectivism with Christianity and Buddhism and 12-Step-Programs and Wicca and Galt-knows-what-else, when our own philosophy has already provided us with much more effective means of achieving clearer (and better integrated!) versions of whatever scattered good insights these traditions may have to offer?

If some tactic like passive resistance can actually help to spread our ideas, fine ... but let's formulate our own methods of applying it, instead of borrowing highly dubious and flawed formulations from failed belief systems, and trying to re-engineer, repair, and reinvent them into something that maybe suits our purposes.

Thank you, Linz, for cutting through all this cheekiness to the heart of the matter, in your usual no-bullshit manner.

(Edited by Andrew Bissell on 10/25, 10:57pm)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 11:27pm

Dead on, Andrew.

Ed

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 11:31pm

Hey Robert,

If someone attacks me or makes some outlandish claim that offends my sense of right and wrong, by Christ I'm going to say or do something. What that something is will depend on the context of the situation.

Ain't that exactly what Michael was talking about? The Bible story doesn't say, "When someone smacks you on one cheek, just stand there doing nothing and look stupid." The Bible story advocates some weird behavior, which even in the Bible context was considered weird behavior. Turning the other cheek, first of all, is a difficult, counter-intuitive thing to do right after being slapped, for anyone, right? It's a rhetorical gesture, which even in its most misinterpreted modern day form boils down to something along the lines of, "You are behaving like a beast or a machine, if you hit me again you will simply be compounding that."

Gandhi and MLK managed to shame the powers that be into changing the laws of the land with similar tactics. Weren't Gandhi and MLK very effective, famously so?

No one, 'cept Linz, is suggesting that "turning the other cheek" has anything to do with Hitler. When the Allies appeased Hitler, no one was advocating it as the Christian thing to do. They did it for exactly the reasons Linz despises: cowardice and denial of reality. "Turning the other cheek," even when Michael mechanically did so at the age of 14 was not an act of cowardice or denial--it was a misinformed choice.

And MSK, I disagree with your characterizing King/Ghandi and their brethren as being "cheek-turners." They sought to use their opponents aggression and strength against them. By using passive resistance they put the brutality of their oppressors in the most stark contrast possible.

I think one of the reasons Michael wrote such a long article was to create a new context, and thereby a new, more useful definition of "cheek-turning" than the one most Objectivists have been working with up to now. He was using Dr. King and Gandhi to illustrate this new definition. Why is this not clear?

-Kevin

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:30am

This article sucks bigtime. And to add insult to injury, MSK was hit by a hurricane and cannot respond to it. I cannot contact him and I'm worried sick. When he gets back online, he has a lovely little Linzmob to deal with. Rather than discuss the ideas, Linz says that Michael is an appeaser, calls him all kinds of names and insinutes that he would let someone attack me. Nothing is further than the truth. This is from a so-called friend. It seems too often that Objectivists delight in cruelty and would rather attack someone who is on their side than even try to understand their point of view.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:35am

Ethan,

Clearly you missed the whole part where Michael said that that wasn't an appropriate thing to let happen to himself.

No doubt I did. The writing was so poor, it was painful to read. If someone cannot be bothered to express himself coherently, it's no fault of mine if I don't understand him.

Andy

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 6:06am

Besides, Ghandhi's and MLK's positions did not stem from any 'turning of the cheek', but from Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience tract, which was anything but a turning of cheek...

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 6:35am

Well Andy, (and anyone who thinks what Andy is saying is just great)

I have taken the value from Michael's article that was there for me. I'll now take my limp dick and my marshmallows to another thread and go share them with some people who'd rather have a good discussion of ideas than piss on a decent person.

I've seldom felt more dismayed from reading SOLO.

Ah, so true so true. Off I go to a more benevolent thread on this site.

Ethan

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 6:42am

Robert W,

Chamberlain's actions were craven & cowardly. The Czechoslovak army, fighting in mountainous terrain - bolstered by Britain and possibly Russia & France - would have stood a good chance of giving the 1936 model Whermarcht a damn good hiding if that pissy little tosser had grown some balls.

Kudos! I've never heard the case against Chamberlain's appeasement put so ... well, let's say, succinctly. ;-)

Andy

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 7:01am

Just checking in.

Wow - I've never had an article written about me before. I'm flattered. At least I see that ideas are important and they are making a difference.

Linz - I thought you understood English, but you completely misunderstood (or ignored) a few things in my article. I got the impression that you did not read it - merely glanced through it and cherry-picked some phrases you didn't like.

That's your privilege, but there is a severe problem with ignoring my definitions, attributing things I did not say and trouncing those things. It sure looked like fun. If only it had something to do with reality...

Unfortunately, I see this as a trend that has held back Objectivism for years in all the different movements - but more later. Gotta run right now. They just turned on my telephone and I wanted to say hi.

This might merit a full article of its own.

Till later today.

Michael

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 7:53am

I want to answer to post #61 written by Steven.
Steven,I agree on what you have written, but I also believe that Michael was beaten by the bully and didn't not fight back, not, because at that particular moment he turned the other cheek to the bully, but because he was a nice kid. And his mother knew that ! that's why she showed up at the right moment."She wasn't warned by God" Mike wrote it as he did , maybe because he didn't like his mother over protection of him.That's why he put it as he did.
He was a nice kid and remained as such all his life.
What ever happens to him , he will always eat my food.
And no! I will no eat back my words about Michael!
Ciro D'Agostino. "A Cook"

ps
This post is written with the spirit that I am talking about Michael the Child. Capish?

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 10/26, 8:30am)

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:20am

Michael, I am glad to see you back online ahead of schedule and that you only experienced minimal damage at your place from Hurricane Wilma. I hope you and Linz can resolve this conflict valuably.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 10/26, 8:35am)

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:32am

No, Linz, you are dead, dead wrong. The funny part is, I AGREE with the content of your article, just dispute that you are giving MSK's article a fair read.

Ethan:

"Michael's article isn't neat and tight and falls into some errors, but the underlying premise of tactical communication is both positive and proper. There is value in it to me, and I note that value in my posts here. There's no need for a hard-on when discussing philosophical ideas, so I'm glad to be limp dicked while doing. I'm also happy to discuss ideas with theists over some marshmallows, rather than kicking their ass and calling them names."

Bingo, Ethan.

Let's talk false dichotomies. If you see any value in what MSK wrote, you are a pussy; else, you are NEM. I think it particularly funny, since a gay man is running around calling his compatriots pussies (isnt that essentially what limp-dick means?) because they will not piss on the SOLO Psychology Leader. THE SOLO PSYCHOLOGY LEADER. Isn't branding people as pussies a frat-boy thing to do? What's next? You gonna call anyone with a more gentle way a fag? Or a homo? But let's put that aside for now.

Did someone read MSK's article and think he recounted his ass-kicking by the bully as evidence that he thought turning the other cheek was a good idea? I agree that is is sloppy to call both Christian cheek turning and Objectivist "cheek turning." I even agree that MSK is not always the clearest thinker, does not have the purest of thought processes, and his posts are maddening to me at times. I agree with Andrew and others that I did not really see a large point in comparing Christian cheek turning with tactical "cheek-turning." How is that different than any number of other SOLO articles?

Right is right, regardless of what others think. MSK is much more interested in getting along with people than I am, and I think he is willing to compromise the integrity of that first sentence towards that end. But, Linz and Andy, whose tirades are intellectual analogues to the beating MSK took as a young boy, do not serve much purpose.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 9:48am

But, Linz and Andy, whose tirades are intellectual analogues to the beating MSK took as a young boy, do not serve much purpose.

Oh come on, Scott! There can be no such comparison. Even if you think we're wrongheaded, voicing clear opposition to an idea is in no way analogous to the unprovoked initiation of violence. Nothing Linz or I have said is capable of causing harm. We need to put aside this equation, apparently common around here, that fierce disagreement - even if obnoxious, over the top, and nasty - hurts anyone. It doesn't. It can't. Self-respect makes it impossible to be hurt by invective, let alone mere disagreement.

Whether or not you can have any self-respect as a candy bar salesmen is another matter. ;-)

Andy

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 9:54am

Scott,

One thing you certainly got right is that both Linz and I oppose the pussification of Objectivism that is evident in MSK's article. What I don't get is why sexual orientation plays any role in identifying this problem.

Andy

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 10:11am

Just went back to MSKs article. The first comment was Adam Reed's.

Brilliant, Michael, just fucking brilliant!

Odd from one who chides others on their faulty Objectivist epistemology.

Sure you don't want to capitulate, Linz?