Philosophical Corruption

Miscellaneous Topics
1

Ever since I found Objectivism, I have become increasingly drawn toward philosophy. I suppose I wasn’t fully aware of what I was getting myself into, for I found in philosophy nothing but Skepticism and Mysticism, as Ayn Rand correctly identified. I found philosophers who impugned reality, our senses, and reason. Suddenly I find myself unsure of anything; in short, all of these ideas have wreaked considerable havoc on my mind and, consequently, life.

So, the purport of this post is simply to inquire as to how many of you out there have experienced this and what, if anything, did you do to overcome it. It’s really taken quite a toll on me.

Thanks in advance.

2

The only reason such ideas would have any effect on your mind would be that you took them seriously and believe them. Such ideas cannot harm you unless you accept them, either implicitly or explicitly. If you understand that such ideas wreak havoc upon your mind, your next step should be to understand why they do so, what is wrong with the ideas, and what is the correct idea, followed by accepting the correct idea(s) and applying it (them) to your life.

3

Dr. Peikoff once said that it took him decades to fully understand Objectivism. (part of the reason was that he didn’t have the full body of Rand’s work, as we do , but still) So, you should consider the possibility that you don’t fully understand Objectivism, and that in the past you have accepted some of the premises in Objectivism at least partially on faith, without fully validating them.

Now, that you have read people who have dedicated their lives to bringing arguments against reality and reason, you don’t have the full arsenal it takes to defeat their attacks. As you said, they don’t offer solutions, only uncertainty, and confusion. But you still need answers, so I suggest returning to Objectivism, starting at the beginning of OPAR (and ItOE, maybe even rereading AS if you think you’d enjoy it), and identifying the answers to each of those questions you have, one by one. Objectivism does have the answer to Skepticism and Mysticism.

P.S. I didn’t really experience what you’re describing. I became familiar with Rand long after I dismissed a lot of what I knew as philosophy (starting with Plato’s cave), as insane, and not worth showing any interest in. I actually learned about Rand through my study of Libertarian politics, not philosophy, and then started liking reading philosophy again, even beyond Oism.

4

I have not experienced it, so feel free to disregard my answer, but I’d say this happens to people who never really understood Objectivism in the first place, or at least don’t have enough practice in applying it to both their own life and philosophical issues. Objectivism does have the answer to both Skepticism and Mysticism. I suggest returning to it, and identifying the answers to each specific question you’re unsure of, one at a time.

Thanks for the reply. I agree with your explanation. I certainly understand the basic–and let me emphasize the word “basic” here–tenets of Objectivism, and I am in complete agreement with them. However, I’ve only been studying Objectivism for a matter of months, so I think the teachings have yet to “sink in.”

5

The only reason such ideas would have any effect on your mind would be that you took them seriously and believe them. Such ideas cannot harm you unless you accept them, either implicitly or explicitly. If you understand that such ideas wreak havoc upon your mind, your next step should be to understand why they do so, what is wrong with the ideas, and what is the correct idea, followed by accepting the correct idea(s) and applying it (them) to your life.

Thank you for your insightful reply. I certainly fear that these ideas have implicitly taken root in my mind. Although I don’t agree with these absurdities (primarily ideas pertaining to metaphysics), there is something about them that disconcerts me.

I think that part of the reason is my ignorance in regard to proper methods of thinking/reasoning. So I am at times defenseless against the circumlocutions and verbiage employed by certain philosophers.

Again, thank you for the tips.

6

My laptop is acting up, so I posted an unfinished version of my reply (the one you quoted and answered). In the mean time, I rewrote the thing, and posted the new version from my desktop. Sorry for the confusion, please disregard the early version, and check out the new one, above. I think it’s far better, since it clarifies the whole “not fully understand” thing. (I don’t claim to fully understand Oism either)

7

I have Atlas Shrugged as an audiobook, and listen to John Galt’s speech sometimes.

Listening to it makes me feel like I’m loading bullets quietly and guiltlessly into an anxious gun. With each bullet, comes the silent retreat of the dark enemy. Arguments against reality dissolve before they can even form. Seriously, read it and tell me you don’t know what I mean.

I’m convinced that a great proportion of those who have read Atlas Shrugged skipped the speech, sadly. It is utterly convincing, and seems to be the point of the novel. What other philosophical discourse, in such plain layman’s terms, benefits from hundreds of pages of context? I’ve read/listened to it about four times ever, which is also sad. Everytime I do, I’m reminded of things I had forgotten.

8

I have Atlas Shrugged as an audiobook, and listen to John Galt’s speech sometimes.

Listening to it makes me feel like I’m loading bullets quietly and guiltlessly into an anxious gun. With each bullet, comes the silent retreat of the dark enemy. Arguments against reality dissolve before they can even form. Seriously, read it and tell me you don’t know what I mean.

I’m convinced that a great proportion of those who have read Atlas Shrugged skipped the speech, sadly. It is utterly convincing, and seems to be the point of the novel. What other philosophical discourse, in such plain layman’s terms, benefits from hundreds of pages of context? I’ve read/listened to it about four times ever, which is also sad. Everytime I do, I’m reminded of things I had forgotten.

I’ve read Atlas Shrugged in it’s entirety, for the first time a few months ago; and I re-read the speech once again a few weeks ago. So, I certainly know the feeling you’re referring to. Rand’s writings have a way of allaying all my fears and doubts, if only temporarily. I’m actually going to re-read the whole book very soon. =]

And yet, it seems as if the irrationality is ubiquitous: in books, television shows, movies. One is just bombarded with it. Maybe I’m looking into things too much.

9

Ever since I found Objectivism, I have become increasingly drawn toward philosophy. I suppose I wasn’t fully aware of what I was getting myself into, for I found in philosophy nothing but Skepticism and Mysticism, as Ayn Rand correctly identified. I found philosophers who impugned reality, our senses, and reason. Suddenly I find myself unsure of anything; in short, all of these ideas have wreaked considerable havoc on my mind and, consequently, life.

So, the purport of this post is simply to inquire as to how many of you out there have experienced this and what, if anything, did you do to overcome it. It’s really taken quite a toll on me.

Thanks in advance.

Here is something you should never be unsure of: Contradictions do not and cannot exist in reality. If you meet up with a contradiction one of two things is the case: Either there is a false premise or the logical inference that lead to the contradictory conclusion is invalid. Nature in the raw may be difficult to comprehend at times, but it is never contradictory.

I would like to tighten up the notion of corruption with you.

First: There is the matter of error. Honest people can and do make mistakes now and again. An honest error is not corruption. In situations with less than complete information to hand,l misidentifications can and do happen. Presumably, when one who makes an honest error is presented with sufficient evidence that he is in error, will correct it or attempt to correct.

Second: Lies, cheats and deceptions. Here is where you find corruption. When one attempts to deceive either himself or others by evasion of fact or logic then you have genuine corruption. People in the corruption business are not interested in truth. They intend to deceive others (or themselves) into accepting non-fact or non-reason.

The way to distinguish the two cases is to see how a person handles the revelation (based on solid evidence) that his position is wrong. If he is honest, he will consider the evidence and if he finds the evidence convincing he will make whatever modifications needed to eliminate the error. A less honest person may “yes…but” the evidence or pretend they never received the evidence. What do I mean by evidence? I mean either the revelation of fact by empirical means, or the clear logical proof of error from a premise shared by both the one who presumably is in error and the one who challenges the presumed error. Denial of logical proof is equivalent to asserting a contradiction. People who knowingly assert contradictions are either deranged or do not care about what is true and what is not true. Watch out for these folks, do not invite them to dinner, or if you do, count the silverware after they leave.

What is an error? It is either misidentification of a fact or invalid inference of a conclusion from a premise, in short, an invalid argument. One must be a bit careful here. One can make a valid argument starting with a false premise. (*) In fact one can even conclude a true statement by valid argumentation from a false premise. That is where misidentification comes in – taking a false premise to be true.

Keep in mind that honest folk do not object to correcting their errors. Dishonest folk will go to great lengths to conceal their errors.

* Here is an example of a valid argument starting from a false premise leading to a false conclusion:

All mice are lions, All lions are flowers therefor All mice are flowers. The form of the syllogism is BaRBaRa, the most popular valid categorical syllogism.

Here is an example of a valid argument starting from a false premise leading to a true conclusion:

All mice are lions, All lions are mammals therefor All mice are mammals. Again, the same valid categorical syllogism is invoked.

One thing that CANNOT happen: A false conclusion cannot be inferred from true premises by a valid argument. If one has reached a false conclusion, then either one of the premises must be false or the argument is not a valid logical inference. This is the situation where Ayn Rand advised one to check his premises.

Stay calm, be systematic, find the false premise or the error in logic. This approach is bullet proof.

Bob Kolker