Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

New rationalists always seduced by the dark side

Rate this topic


psychotrope
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is it just me, or does it seem that when a person first opens the door of the closet of religion out into the world of rationalism, beginning their journey to reason and enlightenment, they are almost always seduced by the dark side of politics --- i.e., liberalism, i.e. anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-freedom. The would-be rational, led by the majority view held by atheists, ventures into another, even deeper and darker closet. Instead of being an instrument of reason and freedom, they become a tool of the anti-capitalism machine, doing far more damage with their illogical political philosophy, than with their former illogical religious philosophy.

As long as they're not tyring to force their religion on others (Intelligent Design, illegality of certain sex acts, etc.), and not trying to enforce altruism (foreign aid, welfare, etc.) Christians are largely benign in society, compared to the poison that an illconceived political philosophy spreads in the name of "reason" and "intellectualism". Christians won't force me to worship Jesus, but liberals will force me to support their altruistic causes through taxes, respect their concept of the environment through regulation, and conform to their fascist social agenda through smoking bans (and foie gras bans :confused: ) and anti-freedom of speech laws.

Don't get me wrong, Christianity is an assault on reason. But religious mystics are much easier to ignore than the liberal political movement which seeks to legislate EVERYTHING.

Although both are evils, it would appear that the second evil is far worse than the first. How does one fight this de-railing on the train tracks to objectivism? Do any newborn rationals stand a chance with such an enemy standing at the exit door of religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if we are talking about somewhat older individuals (it doesn't seem likely to me that many teenagers reject their religion) then it is mostly due to their own fault that they get into this trap. I mean, at some point it would have to become obvious that it's not quite as benign as it seems at first, and this is the moment that they should back out. That most do not is their own responsibility; it's not as if they couldn't help it. They are volitional beings, and should act like it.

Having said that, I don't think many people who are able to really grasp Objectivism fall for this... Sure, it's important to increase the chances of people discovering Objectivism, and we should continue to show the madness of these liberals, but I do not see it as a huge problem. It will require many more years before present day liberalism loses the last of its attraction; it would be nice to accelerate that, though :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One small correction to the first post: I think you mean reason, not rationalism. Reason is the means of perceiving reality and making rational inferences thereof; rationalism is the (irrational) belief that one can gain valid knowledge by looking at ideas disconnected from reality and deducing from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has, as you say "open[ed] the door of the closet of religion out into the world of rationalism" (or "reason" as LaszloWalrus would have it) I was a liberal before I even became an atheist, and then before I read Ayn Rand for the first time and discovered Objectivism (which, for clarity, were two separate events). So, I think this is an eventuality that you haven't addressed.

I would suppose (although I only have myself to consider for reference) that this is the case for many budding Objectivists--not so much that their thinking is hijacked or "seduced" by those ever-devious liberals, but that they came into Objectivism with liberal ideas in the first place. These ideas may be remnants of an altruistic religion, or as in my case, something completely separate. They're difficult to shake, essentially because being told that everything you believed prior to discovering Oism was a big, fat lie and you were a damn fool to believe it is not an easy thing to hear.

For my part, and for my atheism, I was never all that big on religion (although I tried to be) in the first place, so discovering the "everything you believed before blah blah blah" wasn't hard to take. However, when this realization is applied to liberalism, which was very ingrained in me and in other people (due to society, as you mention), it is. So the budding Oist is left conflicted, and may reject it in the end, or at least grapples with it (as I do).

Of course, the conflicts and the grappling and general philosophic dithering could be attributed to a weak-willed intellect. So be it. Then, in this case, the rejection of Oism really is "their fault" as stated by Maarten. I think whether or not one can accept Oism fully is contingent upon how satisfied a budding Oist was with liberalism in the first place. If, even before picking up a copy of The Fountainhead, this person could look at some of the policies put in place by our government (welfare, business regulations, etc) and societal norms about morality and say "this is a load of Marxist hippie crap" (in not so many words), then they're more likely to respond to Oism completely. If, however, as I was getting at above, the Oist begins studying Rand, still clinging to their former ideals, then they're more likely to reject it. Also, considering our social climate, societal ideals of what is and isn't virtuous, and what they study in school (if they're a college student), these work to cement those ideals in the budding Oist's mind.

Again, yes, if they really did have any intellectual mettle at all, this wouldn't be an issue. But seriously...a lot of people don't. There are far too many Peter Keatings (or is it Keatingses?) out there.

So...the point is, (finally) that more people do not become Objectivists for the same reason many people do not become atheists--the percieved warm, soft fuzziness of liberalism and religion is more inviting than the percieved cold, hard harshness of Objectivism and atheism. The devil you know, right?

Unfortunately, I apparently posess one of those weak-willed intellects that lacks mettle because I know far too much about this struggle. Sigh. I hope this helps answer (some of) your questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although both are evils, it would appear that the second evil is far worse than the first. How does one fight this de-railing on the train tracks to objectivism? Do any newborn rationals stand a chance with such an enemy standing at the exit door of religion?

There is an interesting article by Andrew Bernstein called Villainy: An Analysis of the Nature of Evil, in which he compares various types of philosophies including Christian and Statist, and rates which ones he thinks are more evil and why.

But if it's true that collectivism/liberalism/nihilism is worse than modern western religion (and I think that's true, at least, for now), then it's possible that those abandoning religion in favor of nihilism are not being "derailed," but were in fact never on the right path to begin with. Perhaps it's the case that the persistent clash between their world view and reality simply provoked them to give up on having a world view at all.

Personally, I've never known any budding Objectivists who turned into nihilists. I've come across a few flakey types who dabbled in Objectivism among two dozen other things before deciding on nihilism. But I never would have called them budding Objectivists. They were never even capable of taking it seriously. It was flavor of the month to them. (But that's just my own experience with people).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering Bush’s recent use of veto power, happenings in church/state, abortion rights, the manipulation of Christian voters to tolerate war policies in the Mid-East, and tighter controls on where you can express what ideas, I take Christians to be far less benign than you. ESPECIALLY since viewed as the defenders of a free market.

I consider myself more liberal than conservative, if we are to cast political views in that inadequate spectrum.

(it doesn't seem likely to me that many teenagers reject their religion)

I find it interesting that you say this. I generally find people who reject any notion of god to do it in their youth. But in recent times I am noticing more young theists, and I think it's because it's the new liberal thing. "Liberal" means open-minded, more or less, and liberals keep pushing the boundaries of that in which they can believe. What could be more preposterous than a god? The political trend is coming full-circle. Atheism used to be a way of rejecting normal society but, once atheism became largely considered the rational way, in order for liberals to express their new, posh, cutting-edge anti-reason they adopt silly beliefs like theism--which I suspect they are fully aware has no rational basis whatever. God as a fashion statement.

It strikes me as rather European. They are taking something they know that you know that they know is absurd, and defending it with utter gravity and solemnity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I find the conservative point of view more dangerous or at least disadvantageous because Objectivism can never thrive in an unthinking culture. Even though people risk their philosophies and their souls by striking out to find new intellectual ground, on the other side of the coin they doom themselves in complacency. Objectivism NEEDS a culture of open-mindedness, tenacity, daring in order to get anywhere. It needs people who think that ideas actually matter, and that to believe something means to live it. Which is actually the reason I love Nietzsche as much as I hate him--god rest his soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I said that because I think most people reject it at a somewhat older age; when they are adults. I may be wrong on that, though. But it generally takes time for someone who grows up in a religious family to reject the notion of God and become atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I said that because I think most people reject it at a somewhat older age; when they are adults. I may be wrong on that, though. But it generally takes time for someone who grows up in a religious family to reject the notion of God and become atheist.

I became an atheist when I was 9. I know plenty of people who rejected religion as they began to think more - I would even say that if a person were to become an atheist at all he would do it as a teenager. Adults are generally set in their belief systems and aren't open to reason.

Edit: Just for reference I grew up in a religious family and attended Yeshiva (religious school) until 6th grade (when I forced my parents to send me to public school). Being exposed to religion at a young age (I mean really exposed - not just some watered down Christianity) is the best way to see the irrationality of religion and reject it. Especially if you are first being exposed to science at the same time.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I find the conservative point of view more dangerous or at least disadvantageous because Objectivism can never thrive in an unthinking culture.
Well I agree that Objectivism (and man) cannot thrive in an unthinking culture, but that would be an argument against liberalism. Leftists aren't any kind of friend of free speech or thought. Remember, the concept of "political correctness" is a leftwing concept.
Objectivism NEEDS a culture of open-mindedness, tenacity, daring in order to get anywhere. It needs people who think that ideas actually matter, and that to believe something means to live it.
By "open-mindedness" do you mean rejection of concepts such as "moral" and "true"? That's what "open-mindedness" refers to, in terms of current culture. An open-minded person is one who sees all value systems as being equally good, and condemns nothing as "evil" (how old-fashioned and narrow-minded!!). Objectivism needs a culture where people are willing to actually judge values and actions objectively.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... if it's true that collectivism/liberalism/nihilism is worse than modern western religion (and I think that's true, at least, for now), ...
I think that old-style socialist thinking wasn't really nihilist. I think this type of thinking -- generally not too religious, but with the idea that many things are cleary good and evil, without God having to say so -- would be the mainstream non-intellectual view. I think one can try to reason with the bulk of such folk.

OTOH, the true nihilists and the true believers are more difficult to break through because you're trying to change metaphysical and epistemological ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering Bush’s recent use of veto power, happenings in church/state, abortion rights, the manipulation of Christian voters to tolerate war policies in the Mid-East, and tighter controls on where you can express what ideas, I take Christians to be far less benign than you. ESPECIALLY since viewed as the defenders of a free market.

I consider myself more liberal than conservative, if we are to cast political views in that inadequate spectrum.

Well, I suggest that you read the article I linked to. Just because religion is becoming increasingly dangerous politically, it doesn't necessarily follow that all Christians, as individuals, are more evil than the liberals, outside of their personal context. I think Leonard Peikoff's DIM hypothesis is certainly something to take into account, as well. But, that idea is still pretty new for me, and I'm still chewing on the tidbits I've heard from it so far.

It needs people who think that ideas actually matter, and that to believe something means to live it. Which is actually the reason I love Nietzsche as much as I hate him--god rest his soul.

Hm.. what exactly do you mean by that? (Are you saying that you love/hate Nietzsche because you think his ideas matter, or because you think he thought ideas matter, or that he lived what he believed, or that he thought to "believe" means "to live," or something else?)

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An open-minded person is one who sees all value systems as being equally good, and condemns nothing as "evil" (how old-fashioned and narrow-minded!!).

I would like to know why you say that. As I and my dictionary seem to understand the word, it simply means the willingness to consider any idea at all in utter seriousness--but that doesn't mean to accept it as true nor does it mean to never condemn or ridicule after due consideration.

I would consider it the very mark of reason over emotionalism and dogmatism.

[Edit: added last sentence.]

Hm.. what exactly do you mean by that? (Are you saying that you love/hate Nietzsche because you think his ideas matter, or because you think he thought ideas matter, or that he lived what he believed, or that he thought to "believe" means "to live," or something else?)

I mean that Nietzsche lived his philosophy to the extent that it could be lived, which is evidence in itself that he took ideas seriously. That is why I love him. I also love/hate him beacuse of the content of his ideas.

Edited by aleph_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know why you say that. As I and my dictionary seem to understand the word, it simply means the willingness to consider any idea at all in utter seriousness--but that doesn't mean to accept it as true nor does it mean to never condemn or ridicule after due consideration.

I would consider it the very mark of reason over emotionalism and dogmatism.

There is an excellent statement of AR's position on this in her essay "Philosophical Detection." It appears in Philosophy: Who Needs It on pg 21, and The Ayn Rand Letter on pg 292.

One further suggestion: if you undertake the task of philosophical detection, drop the dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an "open mind." This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having "a wide open mind." That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A "closed mind" is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a "closed" mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.

What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an "open mind," but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear.

If you keep an active mind, you will discover (assuming that you started with common-sense rationality) that every challenge you examine will strengthen your convictions, that the conscious, reasoned rejection of false theories will help you to clarify and amplify the true ones, that your ideological enemies will make you invulnerable by providing countless demonstrations of their own impotence.

No, you will not have to keep your mind eternally open to the task of examining every new variant of the same old falsehoods. You will discover that they are variants of attacks on certain philosophical essentials—and that the entire, gigantic battle of philosophy (and of human history) revolves around the upholding or the destruction of these essentials. You will learn to recognize at a glance a given theory's stand on these essentials, and to reject the attacks without lengthy consideration—because you will know (and will be able to prove) in what way any given attack, old or new, is made of contradictions and "stolen concepts." [Footnote from PWNI: The "stolen concept" fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends. See The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. II, No. 1, January 1963.]

I mean that Nietzsche lived his philosophy to the extent that it could be lived, which is evidence in itself that he took ideas seriously. That is why I love him. I also love/hate him beacuse of the content of his ideas.

Is it possible for a person not to live according to what he believes, to the extent that it is possible? Personally, I find that I often love Nietzsche as a writer and hate him as a philosopher. He didn't take ideas seriously in the sense that he was often terribly inconsistent, and incomplete in his ideas. He was a German Romanticist, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know why you say that. As I and my dictionary seem to understand the word, it simply means the willingness to consider any idea at all in utter seriousness--but that doesn't mean to accept it as true nor does it mean to never condemn or ridicule after due consideration.
If you have doubts about the meaning of "open-minded", you should approach the question inductively. Look at the situations where the term is used, and see exactly what the advocates of "open-mindedness" are really saying. They are simply saying "you can't ever reject that idea, because doing so is being closed-minded".

Are you so open-minded that you're willing to consider the idea that maybe the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis during WWII could have been for the betterment of mankind? Are you so open-minded that you are willing to consider the enslavement of North Korea to be "for the good of the people"? Are you willing to open-mindedly consider the possibility that rape and murder are valid lifestyle choices? I think the problem is that you just don't understand the true nature of being "open-minded". It is, at its very heart, moral nihilism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it "closed-minded" to reject the validity of the "closed-mind"?
I think that's a correct interpretation of the open-minded dogma; it's also closed-minded to accept the validity of open-mindedness. An open-minded person must be open to the possibility that open-mindedness is not morally better than closed-mindednes; well, no, that was too narrow a statement. Rather an open-minded person must be open to being open-minded about the possibility of there being an error in open-mindedness. But leave out the "must" part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being open-minded is simply looking at both sides of the issue before making a judgment or an opinion. It's not about staying undecided. Closed-minded is when you study one side withouth looking at it from the other side before adopting your own view. Like say you were taught something (girls are evil) by your parents and never bother questioning their word. Being open-minded also means you can re-examine your views on certain things with skepticism.

Edited by Lateralus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being open-minded is simply looking at both sides of the issue before making a judgment or an opinion. It's not about staying undecided. Closed-minded is when you study one side withouth looking at it from the other side before adopting your own view. Like say you were taught something (girls are evil) by your parents and never bother questioning their word. Being open-minded also means you can re-examine your views on certain things with skepticism.

Did you read the AR quote from my post above? The term "open-minded" does mean staying undecided. When you decide, you refuse to consider that the opposing view point is true. That doesn't mean that your mind doesn't stay active, just that it's not open to the possibility that it is wrong-- i.e., it is not skeptical of the things that it knows.

For example.. Suppose you're confronted with the problem-- does 2+2=4, or not? Based on your current context of knowledge, do you really have to stop and look at both sides of the issue before making a judgment on this? You know that four is four units of one, or two units of two, or one unit of three and one unit of one, etc. And you know that A=A. To propose that 2+2=non-4 is to utter a contradiction. Contradictions are metaphysically impossible and epistemologically worthless. You don't have to go through a separate act of proving this every time you make the judgment 2+2=4. You do not need to doubt your judgment-- in fact, you need to not doubt it, because doing so would be a waste of time.

But, you don't then become passive with this knowledge. You keep thinking.. keep gaining deeper insights into what it means to say 2+2=4, and what significance it has in combination with everything else you know, and all the new knowledge you acquire, etc.

The important question is not: Are you open-minded, or closed-minded? It is: Are you active-minded, or passive-minded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an excellent statement of AR's position on this in her essay "Philosophical Detection." It appears in Philosophy: Who Needs It on pg 21, and The Ayn Rand Letter on pg 292.

Didn't bring my copy to Pittsburgh. Sorry, can't read it.

Is it possible for a person not to live according to what he believes, to the extent that it is possible?

Yes, liberals. They're great at descrying the destruction of the environment while demanding more jobs and greater economic prosperity, then driving away in their SUVs.

Personally, I find that I often love Nietzsche as a writer and hate him as a philosopher. He didn't take ideas seriously in the sense that he was often terribly inconsistent, and incomplete in his ideas.
Well, I figure, take two parts German, one part syphilis, throw in philosopher, and I think you'll find Nietzsche really made the best of what he was working with. The part of me that hates him is the part that revolts against his rejection of objective reality, substance, and consistence. But it's amazing to me that he actually founded something in its place, that he took his ideas of the will to their logical extreme and necessity, rather than stepping up to the edge and never stepping off. There's something poetically sad and gratifying about it. He believed in a higher morality, which required that he speak in the booming voice of Zarathustra, and he DID.

I find, too often, people are so timid about ideas that they fear any offense or misstep. They say, "Oh, but you could be wrong. You never know. See it from the other point of view. Palestinians see themselves as freedom fighters. How do you know you're not? You're speaking from a western point of view. Animal rights activists see themselves as liberators. From their point of view, they are just defenders of life." And I say, yes, if those people's ideas were right, their actions would be right. But they're wrong. And since they're wrong, they are to be condemned. Nietzsche did not have the fear of saying, "But you're wrong. I am right. My mind tells me so." Of course, Nietzsche was wrong, which is unfortunate. But I love the gusto, the confidence, the living out his rejection of Christian self-mistrust.

If you have doubts about the meaning of "open-minded", you should approach the question inductively. Look at the situations where the term is used, and see exactly what the advocates of "open-mindedness" are really saying.

My mother used to tell me to keep an open mind when, emotionally and prejudicially, I would reject out of hand experiencing one thing or another--considering one idea of another. She did not mean for me to believe everything, but to consider everything at least once. Inductively, open-mindedness is a legitimate and good thing.

Are you so open-minded that you're willing to consider the idea that maybe the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis during WWII could have been for the betterment of mankind? Are you so open-minded that you are willing to consider the enslavement of North Korea to be "for the good of the people"? Are you willing to open-mindedly consider the possibility that rape and murder are valid lifestyle choices?
Actually and quite frankly, yes. When going to Brandeis, I was living with my best friends who were all Orthodox Jews. Since I thought about Judaism a lot, I also thought about WWII a lot. And yes, for a time, I seriously asked myself, "Do I have reason to believe that Jews are a lesser form of human or even non-human? Was Hitler right?" I believe that is proof that I have reached an extreme height of open-mindedness, where I consider something so socially unacceptable that it causes a gut-reaction in most people and the very contact with such an idea nearly implies guilt by association--but I considered it not out of rebellion; not out of a desire to cause disgust; not out of collectivism; but because I wanted to excavate every ounce of unreason, burn every shred of emotionalism that might have woven itself into my fabric. I asked the question, and the answer was, "No." Not only that, the answer was, "Without question, NO!" And only now am I in a justified position to ridicule the idea.

Isn't it "closed-minded" to reject the validity of the "closed-mind"?

Much as I hate to align myself with a Toolean, I agree with Lateralus's post. Being one who is very interested in logic, I've become very attuned to the self-referential concepts so I've already considered this possibility. But because I have considered being close-minded and have simply rejected it, I am both consistent and open-minded. As I've been arguing, to be open-minded is not to accept everything, but to consider everything seriously and then to make a judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the AR quote from my post above? The term "open-minded" does mean staying undecided. When you decide, you refuse to consider that the opposing view point is true. That doesn't mean that your mind doesn't stay active, just that it's not open to the possibility that it is wrong-- i.e., it is not skeptical of the things that it knows.

For example.. Suppose you're confronted with the problem-- does 2+2=4, or not? Based on your current context of knowledge, do you really have to stop and look at both sides of the issue before making a judgment on this? You know that four is four units of one, or two units of two, or one unit of three and one unit of one, etc. And you know that A=A. To propose that 2+2=non-4 is to utter a contradiction. Contradictions are metaphysically impossible and epistemologically worthless. You don't have to go through a separate act of proving this every time you make the judgment 2+2=4. You do not need to doubt your judgment-- in fact, you need to not doubt it, because doing so would be a waste of time.

But, you don't then become passive with this knowledge. You keep thinking.. keep gaining deeper insights into what it means to say 2+2=4, and what significance it has in combination with everything else you know, and all the new knowledge you acquire, etc.

The important question is not: Are you open-minded, or closed-minded? It is: Are you active-minded, or passive-minded?

2+2=4, yes, but even something as simple as that needs to be re-examined at least once in your life. Sometimes when you're a kid, you're not told the why, the reply you get is " because that's what it is " (because the parent/elder does not know the answer or can't be bothered with a long answer). This information you got as a kid stays with you if you don't question it. It's like cheating on a test, where you know the answer to the question because you know what the answer is, but you do not know why that is the answer. If somebody were to ask this cheater why he answered that way, the cheater would not be able to answer correctly. Or even worst, remembering a phrase by heart withouth knowing why that's the answer, and I remember being told to do this a lot in school. I might know that A=A, but Ayn Rand writes pages on the subject about the why A=A. Which means there are people who have a problem with it or don't understand it. Basically, it's good to doubt the knowledge you've been taught a few times. I don't mean that somebody should doubt 2+2=4 forever. Somebody should doubt at least once, like the moment you found Objectivism, I'm sure you started doubting everything you knew (especially if you were on the opposite end of an Objectivist). If an Oist takes in everything just because Rand says it withouth knowing why she reasons that way then that Oist is on the wrong path again. I don't know if you would call all of that active-minded or open-minded.

It was common knowledge that the earth was the center of the universe once. Galileo was executed because of his new ideas which conflicted with their traditional knowledge. The sun being the center of the universe contradicted the earth being the center of the universe (both turned out to be false). Would you say they were passive minded or closed minded?

Edited by Lateralus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Liberal" means open-minded, more or less, and liberals keep pushing the boundaries of that in which they can believe.
Also, I find the conservative point of view more dangerous or at least disadvantageous because Objectivism can never thrive in an unthinking culture.

(bold mine)

It seems that this discussion is going back and forth between different definitions of liberal and conservative. The literal definition of the terms and the beliefs and/or platform held by the corresponding political parties are two distinct concepts. Using them interchangeably is clouding the issue.

What I've found is that people wear their political affliliations like football jerseys (or war uniforms). Loyal to the death. The enemy is the enemy no matter what he believes, as long as he's wearing the opposing team's uniform. Polarizing figures like Clinton and now Bush have made this even more true.

Perhaps, as Objectivists, it is not fruitful to argue over "which is worse: democrats or republicans." I apologize if this is the conversation I started. I was merely wishing to discuss the ties between atheism and anti-capitalist thinking --- as a barrier for the person who has recently accepted reason as a guide to life instead of some two-thousand year old book --- not the merits of Bush's politics vs. the leftists.

On that note, the discussion of what it means to be "open-minded" vs. "close-minded", regardless of political labels, is bound to be a much more useful endeavor than which is the lesser evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my quotes provided, I find I've used the term consistently--those who are openminded are thinkers and those who are close-minded refuse to think.

It reminds me of a sign that I just saw on a church while walking the streets: "The Primacy of Action".

But I find your insight quite useful, Psycho. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...