the relationships of ignorance, error, and evasion

Questions about Objectivism
1

Would anyone care to elaborate on the the relationship between ignorance, error, and evasion?

For example, take your average American republican, we’ll call him Bob. I’d argue he has a lot more in common with an objectivist than a even a secular liberal. Bob believes in free market capitalism, he believes in having a strong military, low taxes, and being tough on crime. Bob is a (Sunday) Christian. He believes in right and wrong, and a (albeit distorted) objective reality. He has never heard of Ayn Rand or her philosophy, but he is a potential believer. How irrational would you say he is? Would you say his error is one of ignorance or evasion? What stock do you put into degrees of evil?

I recently read Peikoff’s “Fact and Value” and Kelly’s “A Question of Sanction.” Peikoff posits that objectivists should draw a hard line between ignorance and evasion. He says that we should offer objectivism to those who are interested, but if people are clearly committed to bad ideas, then they are evil. He gives the example of an academic Marxist to illustrate this, and to contrast with Kelly’s view that evil has degrees, that cognitive irrationality should be treated with tolerance.

So I suppose the real question is, how much of this world’s evil is the result of evasion, and how much of it is the result of a lack of true ideas (Objectivism)?

2

A related question is..how much should an objectivist respect people who had mixed virtue? Ayn Rand points out that Aristotle’s virtue almosts nullifies his error. Similarly, should you condemn or praise, or both, the founding fathers, who were largely rational, individualistic, earthly, but at the same time some of them believed in god? Or many other thinkers who had a mixture of truth and mistruth?

3

So I suppose the real question is, how much of this world’s evil is the result of evasion, and how much of it is the result of a lack of true ideas (Objectivism)?

I am not sure how to quantify evil. However, I would say that the bulk of the evil that exists in the world is the result of the embrace of the false. 500 years ago, men had not progressed very far in developing true ideas, but now we have had a couple centuries of truth shining in our faces, and yet many people reject that truth. The spread of communism / socialism, the rise of Islam in the modern world, and the deliberate destruction of rights in the name of the latest War on X, account for most of present-day evil, and these are not matters of evasion.

4

I recently read Peikoff’s “Fact and Value” and Kelly’s “A Question of Sanction.” Peikoff posits that objectivists should draw a hard line between ignorance and evasion. He says that we should offer objectivism to those who are interested, but if people are clearly committed to bad ideas, then they are evil. He gives the example of an academic Marxist to illustrate this, and to contrast with Kelly’s view that evil has degrees, that cognitive irrationality should be treated with tolerance.

I don’t think this is an accurate representation of the difference in positions. I would suggest quoting rather than summarizing.

5

For example, take your average American republican, we’ll call him Bob. I’d argue he has a lot more in common with an objectivist than a even a secular liberal. Bob believes in free market capitalism, he believes in having a strong military, low taxes, and being tough on crime. Bob is a (Sunday) Christian. He believes in right and wrong, and a (albeit distorted) objective reality. He has never heard of Ayn Rand or her philosophy, but he is a potential believer. How irrational would you say he is? Would you say his error is one of ignorance or evasion? What stock do you put into degrees of evil?

You cannot tell from the data presented. Positions on issue do NOT tell you cognitive function and rationality. You’re asking us to do a whole bunch of psychologizing. Maybe a better question to ask, is how would one go about judging this issue.

6

I don’t think this is an accurate representation of the difference in positions. I would suggest quoting rather than summarizing.

Good point. I definitely wasn’t trying to summarize their whole positions there, rather just their points in regards to my question of relationships. Kendall..what are your thoughts on whether the world’s evil is more the result of ignorance or of evasion? I know this question is absurdly general, but give it a go.

7

As far as “degrees of evil”, I don’t know if that’s an Objectivist concept. People are a mix of (essentially) good and evil pieces. You must decide if the good in a person is of enough value to outweigh the evil. When you deal with people, you try to avoid (and not condone) the evil parts.

As for the stereotypical republican Bob, I see several causes for concern. First, an embrace of Christianity means a fundamental embrace of irrationality. It rejects an Objective world because “God” can come down at any time and rearrange things at whim. It demands a belief in the mind-body dichotomy. Its followers believe they are giving up eternal life if they reject the mind-body split, so they may reject out-of-hand any philosophy that says they don’t have a soul.

It sounds like JB is trying to establish common ground between Republicans and Objectivists. From an Objectivist perspective there isn’t much difference between the two parties; they just choose different flavors of the same big-government philosophy.

Unfortunately, since Bob is a stereotype instead of an actual person, we can’t say whether he is evading or is ignorant. We can explain the tenets of Objectivism to any individual. Their reaction will tell us which error is occurring. Evaders will say “That’s not what I believe, and you have to respect my beliefs,” or “Nobody believes that,” or “don’t make me think too hard.” The ignorant will say “Huh? I never heard of that before.” People need not be completely convinced by Objectivism on first exposure. Rather, they must be willing to say, “You may have something there, let me think about this.” No matter what their political affiliation, THAT is the person we may have something in common with.

8

Bad ideas kill ; an actual being,or a being’s spirit.

It seems to me that this unholy trinity of ignorance,error and evasion are at the root of most of the evil in Mankind’s past.

Which one is the more blameworthy is the subject for a book [can’t wait to read it!]

At a quick take, I would say that the perpertrators of Man’s ‘big ideas’,those who knew better,but published the vicious,anti-life,ever-so-clever garbage,that has stunted the mind for millenia,are the truly evil.

But,they needed support from others in order to thrive.

The first lot [their disciples,lets say],brought down the message.

Then the masses had to become willing accomplices to such evil fraud.

All it took was willing suspension of belief and the independent mind.

The ignorant said to themselves - if they could think at all - " I don’t understand the fuss everyones making about this,but what the hell,looks like fun!" This bunch are the unconscious.

The evaders started excuses -" I feel this is’nt ideal, or completely perfect ,but give it a chance. They don’t really mean what they say you know. Besides what’s wrong with us getting a bit of power? And you know I have nothing against the Jews ". Here we have the cowardly self-deniers and justifiers.

The 'wrong thinkers’are the most interesting, and culpable lot, I think. This bunch I would call the intellectual perverts. They are able to think,to rationalise,but due to false premises [laid down by the Kants,the Hegels,the Freuds,the Marxes, and the mystics] their conclusions stink,as does their morality.

All this whole process needed was enough,a critical mass, of otherwise good men to say : " Who am I to argue ?" What do I know?" " Who AM I ?"