Topic: Philosophy
The Orwellian Nature of Objectivism A curious libertarian meets the acolytes of Ayn Rand and is silenced by the thought police.by The English Teacher
(libertarian)
Monday, December 8, 2008
Imagine that you stumble across a Creationist forum with a debate section and you decide to post there. You are quickly contacted by the administrator of the forum who informs you that racist posts are in violation of forum policy. Since your post was about fossils you are a bit stunned, but the users help you to find the glossary in which evolution is defined as: "The peudo-scientific teachings of Darwin and popularized by Huxley the purpose of which are to cloak the racist oppression of black people with some semblance of legitimacy" and maybe a link to a page like this: [link edited for length].
While this strategy may be effective at silencing dissent and belittling evolutionists, it is, at heart, a dishonest strategy that every thinking person should hold in contempt. Nevertheless, a similar line of attack is used against anyone who doesn't agree with Objectivism and those who question the validity of Ayn Rand's definitions. People who honestly object are accused of making "semantic sneak attacks" by failing to kowtow to the unproven wisdom of Ayn Rand (see [link edited for length]).
According to the link, Rand defines faith as: belief without evidence, or contrary to the evidence. The dictionary, however, defines faith as belief that is not based on proof (see [link edited for length]). Let's take a few minutes to carefully examine the difference between the real definition, and the Newspeak version proposed by Ayn Rand.
Imagine, for a moment, that a young child who has just lost a tooth is informed by her father that the tooth fairy will leave her a quarter if she puts the tooth under her pillow at night. The semi-skeptical child asks her mother for confirmation and is informed that the tooth fairy most certainly exists. The child, therefore, places the tooth under her pillow and is rewarded with a shiny quarter in the morning.
According to the dictionary definition, this is an example of faith. No proof was provided for the tooth fairy, yet the child came to believe in its existence due to the testimony of her two parents. When the quarter was found the next day, certainly the child became even more convinced of the tooth fairy's existence.
According to Ayn Rand's definition, however, this is not faith. What word do they use to explain the process above? Causal expectation (see [link edited for length]) is apparently the word of choice. I suppose then that evangelical Christians should run around saying they have causal expectation in the Rapture as opposed to faith...?
The sole purpose of the Ayn Rand's misdefinition of faith is to enable her and her followers to belittle those who do not believe as they do. The perversion of the proper definition enables them to launch a strawman argument against faith in (insert concept here) as "contrary to the evidence" when the person claiming faith in the above obviously feels that there is a convincing body of evidence to support that faith.
Faith is an every day occurence for the whole human race. When they see a product on television, for example, that claims to solve their pressing problem X, they begin to take action to purchase the product and/or obtain confirmation of the product's claims preliminary to buying it. Almost no one contacts the manufacturer demanding that the they come and solve problem X to their satisfaction thereby proving that the remedy works before they will be willing to part with their hard-earned dollars to buy it.
Faith is what gets seeds planted, businesses started, and Olympic athletes to their respective competitions. There is, after all, no proof that the seeds will grow, no proof that the businesses will be successful, and no proof that the athletes will win the gold medals they hope for. In fact, statistics reveal that between 75% to 90% of businesses fail within the first 10 years. Nevertheless, new businesses are started every day.
Finally, as long as Objectivism's staunchest defenders rely on obfuscation and censorship I see no reason to take their beliefs seriously.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of The English Teacher only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. The English Teacher is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You want to discredit the extremely important teachings of Ayn Rand simply because you enjoy blurring the very plain as well as vast differences between the concepts of blind faith and that of assumed outcome, based on past performance or potential to perform in the future.
You must think that we're just a bunch of rubes here that just fell off the turnip truck. No wonder you call yourself a teacher. You must think that everyone you meet needs to be taught a lesson by you. We already have a retired "teacher" on this site and he does no better than you do in his vain efforts to "educate".
Interesting how you jump from Ayn Rand to "they" (some internet forum).
When you have a disagreement with a member of an internet forum better write a post in their forum and let him respond instead of posting a whole article here.
Posted By: Timothy Allen
Date: 2008-12-08 12:05:04
After reviewing your article from a purely logical standpoint I found it to be somewhat lacking. You seem to have some personal vendetta against objectivism which would explain the need to bypass any real evidence and/or proof. Instead you use some arbitrary difference in definition followed by a concrete story to demonstrate the difference between the two, only the interpretation intended for the "evidence" version suddenly gets redefined as "casual exception" which does not explain this case. The correct interpritation uses fact that it is simply false evidence. Proof and/or evidence holds the same status in the subjects mind regardless of its truth. To believe in something one must first be conscious of the lack of evidence and/or proof.
Aside from your incorrect deductions I also found nothing that supported your devious statement, "The sole purpose of the Ayn Rand's misdefinition of faith is to enable her and her followers to belittle those who do not believe as they do." Aside from a confession from Ayn Rand herself I'm not sure what would support such an ignorant and demeaning statement.
Posted By: Filius Publius
Date: 2008-12-08 13:57:23
English Teacher,
I would submit that your definition of faith being belief due to lack of proof is more stringent than simple "lack of evidence or despite evidence to the contrary".
In your scenario, the girl believes in the tooth-fairy because there is evidence to support the belief. A quarter appeared under the pillow. A hypothisys was formed, (albeit weakly) tested, and found to hold true.
At this stage, the girl has no proof, but certainly she has evidence to believe in the tooth-fairy. Now, if she tests the hypothisys more stringently or catches her parents replacing the tooth with a quarter and she still believes in the tooth-fairy, then that would qualify as faith because she clings to the belief despite evidence to the contrary.
Of course, under your definition - the more stringent one, any belief in the tooth-fairy is faith because there are no known methods of prooving the existance of (presumed) mythical figures.
Now, I won't go into the Creationism-Darwinism thing, but your parsing of the definition of faith is flawed, and therefore so are conclusions based on this parsing.
Had you scrolled down a little further on the dictionary page you linked, you would have found this definition of faith in the third entry:
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
That's from the American Heritage Dictionary, so there's nothing unconventional about the Objectivist definition of faith.
Furthermore, as someone who is attempting to blur the very clear difference between believing that the sun will come up tomorrow and believing in a supernatural creator able to suspend the laws of nature on a whim, you are the one who wins the prize for the Orwellian abuse of language. Congratulations.
Posted By: The English Teacher
Date: 2008-12-09 11:30:19
Be that as it may, you should (of course) realize that by attacking with this definition of faith, you are not attacking the main thrust of people's arguments. If a Jewish person says, for example, that he has faith that someday the real Messiah will come, he is *not* saying that despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary he is convinced that it will happen. What he is saying is that, he has a reasonable expectation based on the evidence he has at hand. People, generally speaking, behave in a rational manner based on the evidence they have at hand. The little child believing in the tooth fairy, for example, is behaving rationally and has a perfectly justifiable faith in the existence of the tooth fairy. Unfortunately, as we all know, this 'faith' is implanted by the well-meaning deviousness of her parents. That doesn't change the fact that A) it is faith, as defined by most religions, B) it is rational, and C) it does lead the person to specific actions hoping for specific rewards. As such, it draws a clear parallel between, let's say, a Moslem who blows up a building expecting his 20 virgins (or was it 40?) at a reward when he dies. It is also no different from someone planting pumpkin seeds and expecting to be able to make pumpkin pie someday. So, instead of addressing what people are really saying, the false Objectivist definition of faith is a semantic ruse to avoid debating what religious-minded people are really saying. And, as for the people who said I should respond in the forum, since I have been threatened with censorship and deletion for continuing to post there, I've moved it here where I can speak as I please. Additionally, it should be noted that I take a dim view of a philosophy whose primary weapons are deceptive definitions and censorship.
This is certainly much ado about nothing since that is NOT Ayn Rand's definition of faith. It belongs instead to a contributor to an online forum that purports to be objectivist.
If I were an English Teacher writing an essay on someone else's definition of a term, I would be very careful to go to the source for that definition. To do otherwise would be to embarrass myself publicly, as was done here.
Obfuscation: The act of bewildering. The obfuscation here is not done by Rand but by the author of this article who seems to think that reality has nothing to do with matters of faith. On the contrary, Rand would not argue for "causal expectation." This term is used by the author to discredit Rand when she would never argue in such terms. Rand would say that feelings have no cognitive validity; they are not tools of cognition. Just because the child is made to feel that the tooth fairy exists; she has taken her parent's words "on faith," this does not mean that she knows the tooth fairy exists merely because a tooth is delivered in the morning. Even I knew, as a child, that it was my parents putting the money under my pillow because I stayed up until I caught my mother in the act. In fact, the child in the example feels that a tooth fairy exists but she has been tricked by her parents. She knows nothing about the existence of a tooth fairy because she has not done the thinking necessary to establish whether a tooth fairy is real or not. She has not looked with her own eyes to ascertain the truth of the matter. This is the process about which the author obfuscates. This is still a case of believing something to exist without evidence since a lie is not evidence and a trick is not a causal explanation. I think most of us know this but why does the author obfuscate about such a simple truth? Rand would say, define your terms but also ensure that the definition corresponds to reality.
Faith is belief without evidence. Faith is also belief without proof. Evidence is proof when you pursue it with a proper method of induction, in other words, when you focus on reality and ascertain what exists and you state the relevant facts in their proper context. It does not take an act of faith to recognize that the parent is telling a lie to the child. All you have to do is argue; tooth fairies don't exist; there is no evidence (proof) of their existence; the parent has told the child that they do exist so the parent is telling a lie. The only belittling here is done by the author of this piece who thinks he can fool other adults much like the parent in his example fools the child.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-12-09 19:48:18
Hey Teach,
I enjoyed your article and the reader comments. Good job stirring the pot. I feel moved to respond with a lenghty, thoughtful comment of my own but, alas, I'm under heavy narcotic pain medication while recovering from major surgery and probably not at my best.
I've written several articles aimed at highlighting the similarities between faith-based behaviors no matter what the source of that faith may be; Christianity, Objectivism, atheisim, liberalism or what-have-you, the consequences arising from behavior driven by these faiths are where the idealism meets reality in very similar ways.
The key is that no faith-based behavior carries the responsibility for the actor to adjust their perspective based on the real consequences of their behavior. Reason-based behavior, by definition, MUST account for real-world consequences and be adjusted accordingly to maintain an alignment between ones actions as related to the stated goals of those actions.
This defines the difference between the "blind faithful" of any calling and those who conscienciously and consistently progress toward their ideals.
The problem arises from the apparent inablity for humans to distinguish between the analytical tools available to them and the facts of reality. If their beloved tool says X should result in Y but reality says otherwise, the blind faithful will NEVER question the tool or accept reality. No progress is possible in this paradigm. For a more thorough description of this phenomena, see the wikipedia entry for Libertarian Party.
Sure, it is common to use Faith as simply synonymous with "trust". But concepts are for helping us deal with the essential similarities and differences among things in reality -- so we have to ask whether this sense of the term (and every term) is really useful for us. In fact, it is not useful for clarifying thought -- what do you get with that sense of the term that you don't from "trust"? Just a pretty strong shield aginst people asking for the *basis* of said trust.
Religious faith is certainly a form of trust, but it isn't rational trust. When people are praised for their faith (a "virtue" according to Christianity), they are not being praised for their intransigent exercise of logic and adherence to a firsthanded grasp of the facts of reality -- we call such people "rational," not "faithful." Rather, they are being praised for maintaining their acceptance of some idea *in the face of* a lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary -- which is why we call such people "faithful," and not "rational." When people talk about their faith being shaken, they are talking about things they believe coming into rough contact with facts, and thus facing the unpleasant prospect of rejecting or modifying their happy adherence to what they didn't actually know, in the face of evidence and logic to the contrary. If their faith is actually being shaken, it is being shaken by an exercise of reason -- and shaken precisely *because* their faith is rooted in a trust or confidence that is not rational.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
