The pseudo-safety of evasion.

Originally posted October 17, 2006

Ayn Rand made a point of claiming that avoiding intellectual discrimination is at the source of evil. I would also focus on the fact that avoiding intellectual responsibility as a matter of course over a long period of time is evidence of actually having a wholesale evil philosophy. This is to distinguish from an occasional flaw in thinking where a person lacks the will and/or knowledge to do the rationally selfish thing that he should. That person may either be just mistaken or on the wrong moral route, but that person can redeem himself without too much hardship. (He just needs to check his argumentative premises, reassess, and follow-up with better behavior.)

I believe that the last 1 or 2 decades have comprised a new unfortunate era for America at least if not for the whole world. We have witnessed the transgressions of President Clinton. e.g. He allowed for “Filegate”, he sanctioned China as a “Most Favored Nation”, and he got America involved in the Balkan War. Also, at the beginning of his presidency, he offered safe harbor for Haitian refugees, then he changed his mind sending them back out to sea without substantial aid. We have witnessed the lack of appropriate response from both Bush administrations in regards to the threat of radical Islam. We also see great sympathy for religious tolerance in society even when it means allowing terrorist cells to financially and logistically grow as well as consideration for religion as a vehicle for substantial problem-solving despite a horrible track record. Likewise, the attack on industry and Capitalism in general goes on almost completely unabated. Even when some attempt in the media or the arts is made to appear sympathetic to Laissez-Faire politics, it is done in a curiously unintellectual and almost resigned way.

In other words, Americans may continue to look for answers, but they refuse to question the evil of altruism. At _this_ point in time, this refusal should be quite curious! Certainly, everyone knows about the Catholic scandal involving pedophilia. Also, no one can deny the physical threat made upon doctors who practice abortions. There is also no denying the critical role that religion plays in starting and strengthening war attacks made on generally moral nations around the world.

We hear all sorts of arguments made from both the political left and right on all sorts of issues that supposedly offer reasonable solutions, but no one dares to consider the root causes of these problems. Even Objectivists who have spent years studying the nature of contemporary politics are somewhat baffled by how Americans can continue to hold onto the same basic premises year after year despite what has transpired.

What needs to be faced at this time is not only that politics depends on individual actions i.e. ethics put into practice but those same individuals i.e. the American citizenry needs to face their own commitment to life-affirming values. That is, Americans need to have the morality _and_ the will to fight for the good even against what would seem to be short-term risks. We are long familiar with what Ayn Rand called “arguments from intimidation”. For example, if an honest person tries to offer a new and rational argument, then that person is often met with insults on his person i.e. ad hominem arguments. The intimidation against the original arguer finally is offered in the form of something like, “You can’t be serious (in giving that argument?!)” The motive of the bully is to squelch the argument since they at least implicitly figure that they can’t offer a proper counter-argument instead. (When Dr. Leonard Peikoff argued for attacking Iran as the center of radical Islam, some people in the press considered him to be stupid or crazy. Years later, we are now _explicitly_ finding that Iran is attempting to build nuclear bombs and has no intention of standing down.)

What could allow for such political misfires? How can seemingly well-meaning people suffer so much day-to-day misery in a land of wealth and freedom? Certainly, we can’t blame everyone as perpetually wrong or even crazy. Still, Americans seem to be as angry and frustrated as ever.

Again, I ask: Are Americans willing to face the root causes of their problems? Modern philosophy has provided many bad excuses for inept thinking. The Moderns doubt certainty and good values; some Moderns even seek to undercut existence itself as we know it. While the Modern philosophers’ intellectual errors are of a greater range and magnitude than those of non-intellectuals, both groups share something in common. All of these people are afraid to consider more realistic solutions. Both groups doubt perfection, and further they have come to accept skepticism to the point that they seemed resigned in not even wanting to be able to find solutions to their problems. The mystics (whether professional intellectuals or not) are ready to hand over their thinking responsibility to “God”. The secular people (whether professional intellectuals or not) are ready to just give up altogether and leave the problems for some one else to deal with. They are apt to say, “Oh well, it’s not _really_ my problem after all.” Of course, all of these people are still making excuses for their and other people’s behavior.

There is a philosophy that enshrines evasion, and it’s called rationalism. The rationalists think that offering a solution is equal to offering the correct solution. That is, they are more concerned with getting rid of responsibility. They do this by making an intellectual bait-and-switch. In effect, they are saying, I will give you my opinion (whether sound or not) and, in turn, you should leave me alone. They can even follow this up with more of the same. These people might say: “Oh, you didn’t _really_ want my opinion.” “Who am I to (really) know?” “Oh, you will (really) figure it out for yourself anyway.” As you should see, what they really are doing is saying that _reality_ itself is negotiable… even expendable. (They are a type of Subjectivist in this respect because they are more oriented to reforming other people’s opinions even at the expense of truth than trying to reshape matter into a more pro-human life use.) Well, of course, with such a tactic, these people cannot offer solutions. They have effectively tried to look like they have solved problems without doing the necessary work that would lead to problem solving.

What is necessary for problem solving no matter the time, place, or magnitude? As Aristotle and Ayn Rand indicated, logic is the tool for problem-solving. If you go to someone for help, and that person avoids logical scrutiny, then you can be assured that you will neither get a solution to your problem nor are you likely to be able to rely on that person very much in the future (unless he shows signs of changing his philosophy.)

I want to stress that logic is something that absolutely every person needs to study regardless of their respective education or philosophy. Logic is not exclusive to those who are in a particular field, and it’s not exclusive to those who are deemed intellectuals. Becoming adept at the use of logic is (point blank) a matter of survival.

If America and the world are to be saved, then ultimately it is upon the shoulders of the logicians who everyone depends on. Whoever and wherever someone can argue by using “non-contradictory identification” as Ayn Rand put it, then everyone benefits from arguments which are more applicable and efficient. The religious people want everyone to get “closer to God”, and the environmentalists want everyone to “protect and support Mother Earth.” Ask yourself what has Earth or God _actually done_ for you. You are the operator and governor of your life. If you wish to own and operate your life as a fully-formed human should, then you must always strive to use logic as best as your are able. Likewise, people must come to substitute their false gods of “God” and Earth with the reality of Francis Bacon’s advice: “For nature to be commanded, it(s rules) must be obeyed.” Logic comes into play when people properly ascertain the world that they live in, but for any source of knowledge to be useful it must be acted on with haste. It is my hope that as Objectivist philosophy is spread around the world, people will come to act with greater honor and take action that is both rational _and_ expedient.