Should an objectivist repent? :)

Shayne,

I disagree with your whole approach. You can't betray what you don't understand and have no bond of loyalty to.

You use words like "vice," "lazy" and so forth to characterize religious faith. I know many people about whom I would use words like "sincere" (however misguided).

But I want to thank you for teaching every member of this thread what real Objectivism is.

Michael

Post 61

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 2:57pm

MSK - I sent you a PM.

Post 62

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 3:35pm

Hong:

I take it you were raised a Communist in China? There's an element of brute force hanging over your head there that we don't have in America. I could have abandoned religion earlier and the worst that would have happened is that some people would be displeased with me. So I wouldn't compare the two. I would compare it to dark ages religion, and I wouldn't blame anyone for being religious in that context.

The full rational scope of repentance is, I think, just pride combined with justice. Drop the word repentance if you want, but make sure to retain those two virtues.

Honest religious person? I doubt they exist in America except in the very young. I think every religious person who is not being coerced is evading in some corner of their mind. That doesn't mean I'd call them evil; they could be nice people who mean well most of the time and I could count on for a great many things. But there is that corner that they've so far refused to let the light shine on.

By "passively" I mean that they refuse to think about and resolve contradictions. They are the sort who when you talk with them about it, end up saying "I just feel it's true" or "I just know." The other sort of religious person actively engages in creating work-arounds for the contradictions (and can also revert to the passivity when the work-arounds fail).

There's also the sort of religious person who doesn't do either, who actively thinks and doesn't purposefully try to insulate his beliefs from reason. This person will not be religious for very many years, he is basically honest. I've known several people like this. I've also known people who were dishonest and then chose to be honest, they converted from the passive or rationalist position to the active-minded one and then got free from religion. Afterwords they characterized their prior selves as being dishonest - the change they made was to start being honest with themselves.

In America, we're free to learn the truth. Those who don't in the long run probably either don't care (they're passive) or actively hate it (rationalizers). This is not a permanent condition, but people don't move out of it by feeling "who cares, I'm fine, everybody's fine, why can't we all just get along?"

Post 63

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 5:18pm

Hong wrote: "(Gee, I wonder if I am the only one here who has never repented. Maybe I too am too kind to myself.)"

Welcome to the club!

Michael

Post 64

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 5:40pm

Michael N.,

Please read my post here: post number #48 http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1002_2.shtml

George

Post 65

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 5:41pm

Shayne,

In general you are calling people here ranters and whiners without specifics--which reeks of projection.

Michael

Post 66

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 5:42pm

Shayne, your last posts contained some very good points. But the concept of "earned guilt" is a dangerous one. That is not to say that guilt -- which means self-reproach -- cannot be earned; it assuredly can be. I've just been hearing about the monster who was discovered to have killed and probably raped a nine-year-old girl; I'd like to see him drown in guilt. But when we are talking about accepting mistaken ideas, say, the ideas of religion, it's clearly a very different issue.

For instance, you said " My main vice was to assume that these people must know what they're talking about because I'm young and inexperienced and they're old and wise." I don't think that's a vice at all. It might be a vice if you were forty years old, but if you were ten, it's a very reasonable assumption. One has to learn, usually through quite painful experience, that "older" and "wiser" are not synonyms.

You wrote: "I think every religious person who is not being coerced is evading in some corner of their mind."

I'd say, instead, that religious people tend to be, at times, uneasy about their beliefs. But they might not know what to do about that uneasiness, what it comes from, what it means. That isn't evasion. ( And some of them have been taught that it is doubt of their religion that is the real vice and must be rejected.)

My point is that it can often be difficult or impossible, especially in complex situations, to know if we have evaded -- and certainly difficult to know if other people are evading. That being so, let's be very, very slow to accuse ourselves, or others, of evasion.

To change the subject, Shayne, you are not being fair to Michael K.. He was quite right to react negatively to your impulsive assertions about people on Solo being lightweights who are not interested in philosophy.

Post 67

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 5:46pm

Hey Kat,

Thanks for the compliments on my site. About the dated calendars you can contact: Barry Kayton here: barry@kayton.org, he organized them. BTW, good luck with the Chicago meeting.

Cheers,

Michael

Post 68

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 6:42pm

Hong wrote: "(Gee, I wonder if I am the only one here who has never repented. Maybe I too am too kind to myself.)"

Welcome to the club!

Er, is this also a "no regrets" club?

Post 69

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 7:42pm

My point is that it can often be difficult or impossible, especially in complex situations, to know if we have evaded -- and certainly difficult to know if other people are evading. That being so, let's be very, very slow to accuse ourselves, or others, of evasion.

Very good point, Barbara.

Shayne,
About pride and justice. Hm, I don't usually think in these terms. So have to spend a bit more time on that.

Post 70

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 7:59pm

Hong,

"Er, is this also a "no regrets" club?"

Sort of like the Joy Luck Club, but better.

There is also a reason for the joy and a reason for the luck.

Michael

Post 71

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 8:25pm

I agree with Shayne, that if you drop the word repentance and just follow the virtues of pride and justice (both which reflect honesty) you'll have a good basis for a rational behavior somewhat akin to repentance. In this you are not seeking forgiveness for errors you have made, merely stating to those you have erred against that you are aware you have erred and are sorry for it. In that way you are being honest and showing showing justice towards your actions. By acknowledging your errors you are sure to learn from them. By evading or rationalizing them you are bound to repeat them to your own harm. If you evade errors on your part and only embrace successes you are on the path to arrogance.

Post 72

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:55pm

I do think justice is a better word to use for what you are explaining here, Shayne, and do agree with your position on the issue.

One's personal sense of justice and morality dictates that past wrongs be righted. I disagree that one should just "let the past be the past" -- it inevitably causes a chink in one's psychological armor. Granted, there are some situations that cannot be rectified, but I believe one should make an effort to do so whenever possible, or at the very least, examine the issue internally and make sure one thinks it through to ensure it won't happen again.

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo
on 3/20, 6:55pm)

Post 73

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:10pm

I really have a lot of trouble trying to talk about certain issues using only Objectivist jargon and classical Objectivist viewpoints. I like to use these, of course, but I also like to do what I call "take my Objectivist glasses off and look," then put them back on.

On this whole repentance thing, a person repents for what he/she feels ashamed of having done. The correct path - for me - is to understand what caused the shame, then correct it, then deal with the residual emotions.

Suppose a man like Ian is ashamed of his past convictions (which, by the way, I personally think would be silly, but for the sake of argument, let it be that way). He has done his thinking and changed these convictions. He has informed everyone pertinent that he no longer holds them, so he is not being hypocritical. Even so, the shame will most likely persist.

My experience in life has shown me that if he ignores this feeling of shame or represses it, it will come back in spades at a most inopportune time. So he repents to tie in to that emotional life. He condemns what he was, almost like wishing that he could erase his past, and embraces the new way fervently.

One dictionary I consulted (Merriam-Webster) gave the definition of repent as "to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life." In later definitions it also mentioned feelings of regret, contrition and (even later) sorrow.

So even the dictionary talks about emotions as being a part of the concept of repent. (I personally use the word "sin" as meaning a volitional act committed that is contrary to ones moral values to the extent that it causes shame - external and/or internal.)

Now, back to our poor Ian. Is he, a new Objectivist, ashamed of having been a Christian? If so, then he should repent and become a good Objectivist. If not, then he should just make his new views clear to the appropriate parties, fix whatever needs fixing, then get on with his life as a good Objectivist.

To ask the question "Should an Objectivist repent?" without determining what he/she should repent of is way too vague to answer with any real meaning. A proper way of asking that question might be (1) If an Objectivist is ashamed of something he/she did, should he/she repent?, or (2) If an Objectivist is not ashamed of something he/she did, but considers it wrong anyway, should he or she repent?

Only then can I start talking about evading, pride and justice and so forth - since the context is defined - and considering it as something more than splitting hairs or issuing broad generalized opinions. It would definitely be much more interesting.

Michael

Post 74

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 12:32am

In post #72 Jennifer Iannolo wrote:

One's personal sense of justice and morality dictates that past rights be wronged.

Huh? Please explain.

Post 75

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 8:03am

Michael,

Yes, the context must be defined. We all bring our own preconceived contexts to every question, but more especially vague ones. The question could be phrased in a much clearer way. Of course, asking vague questions is often a tool of those looking for a disagreement.

Ethan

Post 76

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 8:30am

Rick, I mean that in balancing the scale, the slate of the past should be clean, whether this means rectifying the error or the thinking that caused it. I'm not sure what your question is, so perhaps you could help me to understand it better?

Post 77

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 8:55am

Further to Michael's post, which raised the point of whether or not I am ashamed to have been a Christian, I'd have to say no. I'm a bit embarrassed to have been "taken in" by the fantasy, but I'm not really ashamed of having been there and done that, just as I'm not ashamed of having once believed in Santa Claus. I believed what I believed based on the information I chose to restrict myself to. Once I obtained more information on both counts, I changed my beliefs in light of that new information. For me, I should only feel ashamed if, knowing what I know now, I had continued to live according to a viewpoint which I disagreed with.

So, am I ashamed? No. Am I embarrassed as hell? You bet. :)

Post 78

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:23am

Barbara: Sure, the concept of earned guilt can be dangerous if misused, but I don't think the world is in as much trouble as it is because people are being overly hard on themselves in the respect I'm talking about. I think it's quite the opposite. Indeed I think earned guilt is more dangerous when not used at all.

I agree that my assumption as a 10-year-old wasn't, by itself, necessarily a vice, but I don't think of it as being an isolated assumption. Rather, that assumption props up years of thoughts, feelings, actions, some of which were clues that I was doing something wrong, that I ignored because of that assumption. The assumption made my sloppy - i.e., the opposite of someone with pride. Humility is very corrupting.

I disagree about not knowing that religious people are evading. We can know that with certainty for adults anyway. It would be a rare religious person who evades like a criminal does, but evasion is a requirement of religion. Reality is giving them signals all the time that something is wrong with what they're doing, and they choose to ignore them. They may rationalize to themselves that the choice is driven by their desire to do good (to get to heaven), but it's still evasion. "Blanking out" is unfortunately very common.

You seem to be afraid of accusing someone of evasion, you act like it's a mortal sin and accusation that would necessarily lead to the worst kind of condemnation. I don't see it that way. It depends on what is being evaded and why. Now I won't put a habitual evader on any pedestal, but he might be a fine guy to interact with in various contexts.

Regarding Michael, I disagree but I'm not going to argue with you about him. And for the record I never said that everyone on Solo is a "lightweight", and for the record I don't think that either.

Post 79

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:29am