Why does Rand insist non-objectivists are terrified of existence?

[Vuducow]

I've read Ayn Rand for a while. Certainly all of her fiction and much of her non-fiction; currently reading Philosophy: Who Needs It. Throughout her essays, Ayn Rand writes, essentially, that people who don't embrace reality as an absolute, etc, are confused and terrified at the inconsistencies of their philosophies and reality.

Why?

My observations don't support it. People don't lose sleep at night wanting cheaper gas and to tax oil companies out of existence, for example. Average people don't even think about causality much.

So why do most pages in Ayn Rand's non-fiction say that these non-objectivist savages are just terrified of life, etc? Most average people don't even *think* in these terms!

[Jake_Ellison]

She doesn't say most of those things you're claiming she's saying, certainly not "through most pages of her non-fiction". End of story.

If you wish to quote her with some degree of accuracy in the future, I'm sure many of us would be happy to try and explain what she means, and why we think she's right.

[bluey]

Throughout her essays, Ayn Rand writes, essentially, that people who don't embrace reality as an absolute, etc, are confused and terrified at the inconsistencies of their philosophies and reality.

Why?

My observations don't support it. People don't lose sleep at night wanting cheaper gas and to tax oil companies out of existence, for example. Average people don't even think about causality much.

I think Jake is correct that Rand doesn't explicitly say this very often, but you're also probably not out in left field to have gotten this impression. I've read most (if not all) of her fiction and some of her non-fiction, plus most of OPAR (I'd call myself a very novice student of Objectivism, though certainly a serious one - everything I'm going to say has probably already been said better by Rand in something that I haven't read yet, I'm sure someone will let us know if and how I'm totally wrong ) and from what I have read I think you may be referring to the whole concept of integration, and how a non-integrated worldview necessarily leads to confusion and (for lack of a better term, I'm bookless right now) angst. And of course most people don't go around all obviously angsty and confused. From my own observation, however, and from knowledge of my own thought processes at times, I think people do try really hard to avoid thinking about causality and other fundamental questions. They do this by either assuming that someone else has it figured out and they don't need to worry about it, or by just not giving themselves a chance to consider it, or by adopting a "patchwork" approach to philosophy where they think about specific questions one at a time until they come up with something that "makes sense" for each question, sampling from whatever different philosophies they come across without trying to put it all together (for example, Christians who have decided that the whole heaven/hell ultimatum doesn't jive with a loving god, so they adopt some quasi-Buddhist idea of "enjoying eternal communion with God" or whatever).

There definitely are people who lose sleep over gas prices and taxing oil companies out of existence. People like Toohey or James Dobson whose object is basically self-destruction and whose modus operandi is convincing people that the world and themselves are realistically, if not fundamentally, unknowable and therefore they really shouldn't worry about it, that fortunately "someone else" has the answers and the only philosophy the "little guy" really needs is faith and obedience. And love, of course. For most people obedience and faith and love add up to a reasonable facimilie of real life (or so they're assured) so they just never have a reason to dig deeper.

Whenever someone does, though, you find an example of confusion and terror. It's my own theory (from my own observation and experience) that depression and serious self-destructive behaviour usually result directly from a lack of integration and the terror that comes from sort of waking up with no idea where or who you are, so to speak. One major problem I've seen is that people are taught to find purpose and meaning outside of themselves, and often become desperate and even violent when they realize that no "higher purpose" is provided for them. That's explicitly an integration issue; it's an example of someone finding that their belief doesn't line up with reality and being unable to simply revise thier belief.

That's my understanding of the issue at least; the majority of people simply stick to the bits of philosophy that work for them and try to avoid looking further. The ones who do, often end up with the types of problems that Ayn Rand implies would result from trying to act on inconsistent philosophies or else just try to get enough people to agree with them until they feel okay about the whole thing.

I really have to try to find shorter ways of saying things ...

[Jake_Ellison]

I'd call myself a very novice student of Objectivism, though certainly a serious one

You most certainly are, my friend, a student of Objectivism, and your post proves it. I found that very informative, thank you.

Your thoughts on depression being often caused by an inability to integrate were especially helpful. I have noticed this frequent inability of people who are suffering from depression to argument their opinions, or to come up with opinions of their own without "borrowing them from someone else", but I've never actually verbalized the connection the way you just did. So for what this type of evidence is worth, my limited experience with such people supports your theory.

[Vuducow]

Uh, have you guys read Philosophy: Who Needs It or For the New Intellectual? It is literally mentioned in at least half the pages!!

Starts with "He is blind on two fronts: blind to the world around him and to his own inner world, unable to grasp reality or his own motives, and he is in chronic terror of both." I don't have her book on hand but once I get it in PDF, I can search the number of times she says terror, and I bet you most of the instances isn't about like "dictatorial terror" -- it's about feeling terror about not being an objectivist.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Vuducow

[Greebo]

Uh, have you guys read Philosophy: Who Needs It or For the New Intellectual? It is literally mentioned in at least half the pages!!!

Cite some specific passages that give you this impression, please? Context is important.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Greebo

[Jake_Ellison]

Uh, have you guys read Philosophy: Who Needs It or For the New Intellectual? It is literally mentioned in at least half the pages!!!

Exactly what is?

I do know that exactly what you wrote is not. Why do you feel the need to rephrase what she wrote in such a vulgar and ill-defined manner? Does your post really contain the essence of those books, in your opinion?

As far as your observations go, what exactly are the terms in which average people (you obviously consider yourself above that "average") think in?

[Vuducow]

When men abandon reason, they find not only that their emotions cannot guide them, but that they can experience no emotions save one: terror

The spread of drug addiction among young people brought up on today's intellectual fashions, demonstrates the unbearable inner state of men who are deprived of their means of cognition and who seek escape from reality--from the terror of their impotence to deal with existence

Those two quotes are from very beginning of P:WNI.

Relax, and read what I said instead of being an armchair shrink. You don't know what needs I feel. It's a fact that Rand keeps repeating this 'terror' theme. I've just given three quotes from the first few pages of PWNI.

[Jake_Ellison]

When men abandon reason, they find not only that their emotions cannot guide them, but that they can experience no emotions save one: terror

The spread of drug addiction among young people brought up on today's intellectual fashions, demonstrates the unbearable inner state of men who are deprived of their means of cognition and who seek escape from reality--from the terror of their impotence to deal with existence

Those two quotes are from very beginning of P:WNI.

Relax, and read what I said instead of being an armchair shrink. You don't know what needs I feel. It's a fact that Rand keeps repeating this 'terror' theme. I've just given three quotes from the first few pages of PWNI.

In what specific way do you disagree with those quotes?

So far, your only objection seems to be that she uses the word "terror", which in your opinion should not be used as often.

My answer to that is simple: I don't think that the repeated use of that word means what you wrote in your first post. The reason is simple: Ayn Rand is not referring to non-Objectivists in these quotes. You are implying that she is.

[Greebo]

When men abandon reason, they find not only that their emotions cannot guide them, but that they can experience no emotions save one: terror

Most men do not abandon reason. Not completely. Many apply reason to a great deal in their lives, and set it aside only in certain areas.

Those who do completely abandon reason - those who self destruct into a life lived purely by emotion - they do find their world falls apart and they live in perpetual fear of reality hitting them.

As a case example - Consider the person with out of control debt. They spend, and borrow, and spend, and borrow, terrified to admit to themselves, their families, etc. how bad their finances are. They buy impulsively to feel better, and then evade reality and try to borrow more to pay the earlier debt. The fear mounts and sooner or later it will all collapse, but do they stop? Not until they have to - and meanwhile the feelings they have about the situation is truly terror.

[bluey]

Uh, have you guys read Philosophy: Who Needs It or For the New Intellectual? It is literally mentioned in at least half the pages!!

No, I haven't read it yet.

Starts with "He is blind on two fronts: blind to the world around him and to his own inner world, unable to grasp reality or his own motives, and he is in chronic terror of both." I don't have her book on hand but once I get it in PDF, I can search the number of times she says terror, and I bet you most of the instances isn't about like "dictatorial terror" -- it's about feeling terror about not being an objectivist.

It's definitely not the terror of not being an Objectivist. It's not about dictatorial terror either if by that you mean fear of some external power. I think it's more like the terror of being in the dark about what exactly is going on and what you're supposed to do about it; fear that you don't understand the world and yet that life seems to demand an awful degree of certainty from you, since you obviously have to act and decide between alternatives. I think you can see instances and results of this kind of terror all over the place, and I know I've felt it myself in the past, but like I said before: a lot of effort goes into being distracted from it. Do you disagree that rampant drug abuse could be an indication of a widespread lack of understanding, and therefore fear, of reality? It's a fear that you can clearly and relatively easily counteract without necessarily being an Objectivist, lots of people do it by simply embracing the reality of themselves as rational beings (maybe not in abstract or explicit terms, but in concrete practice).

Since I haven't read the work you're referring to, I can't really help you more specifically unless you want to quote some passages and explain what specific problem you see with them. But I think the short answer to your question about why, if this terror is a real phenomenon, people don't run around in obvious concern is simply that they repress it. It still shows up in lots of ways, like dependence on substances or welfare or maybe in depression or other self-destructive cycles and behaviours.

[Jackethan]

I believe that the terror she's talking about is a very internal, sometimes even subconscious terror. The kind that a person in that situation probably doesn't tell anybody about. It is not a physical emotion, until it is drawn into the light. When such people are confronted directly on their contradictions, they usually respond with intense anger, which is a reaction to the terror they feel inside.

As for the ubiquitous use of the word terror, I've recently read the beginning of PWNI and I agree that I have seen it mentioned a couple of times in that text, and it made sense to me. The kind of terror she means isn't specifically about the external effects of their shortcuts, as in the gas prices or economy death, but the internal struggle from their subconscious to eliminate contradiction while their conscious mind constantly reinforces it.

Jake, she most definitely is referring to non-objectivists in those quotes. CYP.

[bluey]

G-d you guys are fucking morons.

Oh, I guess I missed this before my last post or I'd have saved my breath. Douchebag.

[01503]

Vuducow, you have not made the point clearly, and assumed some things. Instead of saying

G-d you guys are fucking morons.

you could have simply said WHY we were misunderstanding you or missing the point. When people resort to ad hominem, it is usually because they don't have a strong base to launch their argument from.

Please be polite and try to make your point clear.

Edited January 3, 2009 by NickS

[JMeganSnow]

If you want a clear and obvious picture of the complete terror people who abandon reason live in, challenge any of their dearly-held beliefs. The vituperation you will receive in return will stun you.

Fortunately, most people I know are fairly rational so I don't have to deal with this on a frequent basis. Still, anyone who has built a house of cards with no cards on the bottom does live in uncertainty and thus, in fear, of ever finding out that they have no foundation under them.

It's not a constant emotional experience, just like every other underlying emotion. It comes up only when you think about it. Some people avoid it by choosing never to think too deeply or too seriously, thus stunting their intellectual scope. Some resign themselves to perpetual anxiety. Some attack any sign of intellect or certainty in other people. The underlying problem is the same.

[Grames]

Rand could have used the word "anxiety" instead, but being a writer with a fondness for the dramatic she selected "terror" instead. For the reasons given by JMegansnow above, this is an entirely legitimate word choice to describe the mental state to which Rand was referring.

Also, consider that in the passage you quoted she was describing a hypothetical person entirely driven by emotions:

A man who is run by emotions is like a man who is run by a computer whose printouts he cannot read. He does not know whether its programming is true or false, right or wrong, whether it's set to lead him to success or destruction, whether it serves his goals or those of some evil, unknowable power. He is blind on two fronts: blind to the world around him and to his own inner world, unable to grasp reality or his own motives, and he is in chronic terror of both. Emotions are not tools of cognition. The men who are not interested in philosophy need it most urgently: they are most helplessly in its power.

Now, most people are not entirely driven by their emotions, but to the partial extent that they are this passage is accurate. If a person is intensely religious, they actually need to pray to assuage this anxiety.

[MichaelH]

If you want a clear and obvious picture of the complete terror people who abandon reason live in, challenge any of their dearly-held beliefs. The vituperation you will receive in return will stun you.

<snip>

It's not a constant emotional experience, just like every other underlying emotion. It comes up only when you think about it. Some people avoid it by choosing never to think too deeply or too seriously, thus stunting their intellectual scope. Some resign themselves to perpetual anxiety. Some attack any sign of intellect or certainty in other people. The underlying problem is the same.

Megan has hit the nail on the head here.

Ask an objectivist about their deeply-held beliefs, and they can list them quickly. Ask for justification. It is usually given without venom, and they can answer reasonable questions calmly. (Unreasonable questions may be another story...)

Now do the same with a deeply religious person. Unless they are trained in theology, you will probably get a core belief plus a few ill-defined responses. Start probing and asking questions. You'll be amazed how quickly the conversation stops, ending inevitably with "well, that's just what I believe". The more you explore the baseless nature of these beliefs, the more you are resented and the beliefs stand unassailable. The reason for this must be inferred, but I believe it is because the people feel they would have nothing if they didn't have this! I believe this is the terror to which Ayn is referring.

[MartianHoplite]

I am not a doctrinaire objectivist. However, I have read a fair bit of Rand's fiction and non-fiction and find I substantially agree with the views she espouses.

I can also attest from personal experience that being irrational can be terrifying.

My parents were new-agey pseudo-christians and political leftists. They were, in short, mystics of mind and mystics of muscle. This is a recipe for epic metaphysical and epistemological confusion. As a youngster, I uncritically absorbed a lot of their crackpot views. Their malthusian economics and ecology convinced me that humanity was on the brink of gigadeath catastrophe. I quickly spotted the inherent contradictions in their religious beliefs, and started to grapple with question of life, the universe, their purpose, my purpose and the meaning of it all. The painfully deficient philosophical toolset they equipped me with nearly led me into nihilism, and I suffered from recurring bouts of depression and terror. I even contemplated suicide on a few occasions. My parents, of course, were no help at all (Its probably just a phase. He'll grow out of it...)

Luckily for me, early exposure to scientific books and periodicals led me to something like logical positivism. (whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent, etc...) I stopped asking big questions, but was able to begin slowly bootstrapping a coherent metaphysics and epistemology. By the time I discovered Rand, I had already fully embraced rational egoism, the objective nature of reality, the epistemological primacy of reason to differentiate truth from untruth (and therefore as the best means of survival), and a laissez faire political economy.

My adolescent experience escaping from the depths of irrationality was enormously traumatic. What's more, if someone values truth (there are a few of us out there) and is smart enough to spot the most egregious untruths, any irrational system can produce the kind of hopelessness and fear that I spent years struggling through. I'm watching a friend of my younger brother go through much the same thing right now. He comes from a very different background, being raised by very conservative fundamentalist Christians. He's realised the logical and moral bankruptcy of his natal belief system, but he's currently flailing around in the darkness for lack of an alternative. He tries to assuage his fear, uncertainty and loneliness through drunkenness and delinquency. I have tried on a number of occasions to guide him gently towards rational philosophy, but while he's no longer willing to defend the nonsense with which his parents filled his head, he's not yet willing to to directly entertain contradictory ideologies. Only time will tell how things turn out.

My parents, for their part, mostly seem perfectly content to live an unexamined life founded on fantasy and contradiction. They lack either the desire or the ability of separate truth from falsehood. Yet if you challenge them over some particular point they become agitated and defensive. Any critical examination of their beliefs is taken as a personal affront and provokes anger fuelled by what I can only assume is fear.

Edited February 2, 2009 by MartianHoplite