Kicking Against the Pricks

Volley No. 9: Back to Square One

Mr. X,

"Very well. Objectivism begins with the unprovable presupposition that there is nothing outside of, seprate or superior to reality." [sic]

Not quite. Objectivism begins just as the mind of man begins: By recognizing the fact that existence exists. However, while a child takes his first steps in grasping the world around him, this recognition is implicit in his perception of the world. Objectivism makes this recognition explicit by isolating it into the proposition of an axiom. Objectivism does not begin "with the unprovable presupposition that there is nothing outside of, separate or superior to reality," for this is an identification which in itself presumes more than just a simple axiom. Such an identification is the result of inductive reasoning about existence, which presupposes the three primary Objectivist axioms existence, identity and consciousness. I would point to yet another source which elaborates on these ideas quite succinctly, but I suspect that you will not consult it, as you have demonstrated to date no awareness of many of the points found in other references to which I have already referred you in prior messages.

I have already offered the Objectivist definition of the concept 'reality' (i.e., the realm of existence), but, while you still wish to take issue with this broad topic, you still fail to offer your own definition for the term, let alone the source of that definition and the reasoning behind its reference. Quite simply, according to Objectivism, if something exists, it is part of reality. The whole idea that reality is 'contingent' or 'dependent upon' something outside it is completely incoherent. How can the totality of existence be dependent upon something 'outside itself'? There is no 'thing' - spirit or otherwise - outside the totality; the totality necessarily includes all existence. Hence, first cause arguments necessarily fail.

But also note that a starting point is by nature unprovable, since any proof would naturally assume that starting point as implicit in all its premises. So, if one must start somewhere, and starting points are by nature unprovable, does that then mean we have the epistemological leisure to call whatever we want our starting point? Of course not. We must examine the nature of man's knowledge in relation to reality to understand just why the fact of existence can be and must be the conceptual starting point. All concepts assume, either implicitly or explicitly, the fact of existence. Even arbitrary notions must assume the fact of existence in order to make sense. Denying this amounts to a stolen concept fallacy.

"You have challenged me to prove otherwise, which I admittedly cannot, but in all fairness, neither can you prove that there are not aspects of reality beyond our perception."

Again, as I have already explained in past messages to you: the concept 'proof' pertains to that which is positively claimed. The concept 'proof' necessarily presupposes 'evidence' and evidence presupposes existence. There is no such thing as a proof proving the non-existence of something, just as you cannot have evidence for something which does not exist. 'Proof' and 'evidence' pertain to that which is said to exist, not to that which does not exist. Hence, we're back to square one with your lesson here in the nature of logic. You assert a positive claim (e.g., "X exists") but a) fail to provide any evidence for this claim and b) expect others to prove that "X does not exist." You're running around in circles here, Mr. X. Try to think this through. If I assert that there's an invisible magic elf on my shoulder, do you believe that you are obligated to accept this claim as true unless you can prove that the alleged invisible magic elf does not exist? How would you go about proving that this alleged elf does not exist? It's a purely arbitrary claim. Why should anyone take it seriously? Indeed, why do you take it seriously (e.g., in the case of your god-belief)? Because ultimately it makes you feel better? My oh my!

"Regardless of what you may think, I do agree with much of what Objectivism states, such as 'existence exists'. I don't deny that 'A is A' or, a thing 'is what it is', my problem with Objectivism lies in its failure to ask 'why does existence exist?' and 'how did it come to be?'"

The two questions you ask, in order to be answered, would necessarily obligate one to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept; thus the question is internally fallacious. I have already referred you to a discussion of this all-too common and all-too rarely identified fallacy. Again, do you remember the little riddle I gave you in one of my last mailers? Here it goes again:

"How do you argue that existence is a 'creation' without presupposing existence?"

[snip]

Also, here's a riddle for you, if you should wish to attempt it: Can you argue for the position that existence is a creation WITHOUT first presupposing existence?

[unsnip]

Mr. X, how do you answer such a question? Indeed, do you think such a question is possible? Why did you not attempt to answer this in the past? Are you afraid of what might happen, that you might not be able to answer it affirmatively?

When one asks the question "Why does existence exist?" it is presumed that some kind of purpose or explanation (to answer the "why?" of the question) can be posited beyond existence or outside existence. But both the concept 'purpose' and all attempts at explanation necessarily presuppose existence and can only make sense within the realm of existence (i.e., by recognizing the primacy of existence over purpose, causality, consciousness, etc.). To deny this commits oneself to the fallacy of the stolen concept.

FYI: Fallacies do not make for sound intellection.

"Objectivism seems to reject a fundamental law of nature--Causality."

Nowhere in the Objectivist literature is there any statement, presumption or inference which rejects the Law of Causality. Objectivism defines 'causality' as identity applied to action (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 954). Thus, causality refers to the action of entities as "all actions are caused by entities" (Ibid.), and therefore, causality always presupposes existence. Again, the only place you can expressly begin is with the recognition of existence; existence exists. You cannot have causality without existent agents participating in the action of causality. Indeed, when one speaks of something causing something else, what does the causing? Non-existence? Of course not. This is why first cause arguments are rigged from the inside to fail utterly: they commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by treating causality as irreducible to existence (i.e., such arguments attempt to 'steal' the concept 'causality' from the concept 'existence' on which it depends). One cannot argue (as your reasoning below infers) that causality holds primacy over existence; indeed, existence holds primacy over causality, both metaphysically and epistemologically. You cannot assert action (i.e., causality) void of existence.

"A thing (reality included) cannot exist without prior cause for its exisitence." [sic]

But to answer such an order would require one to posit existence, thus your pressing here fails (since it commits you to the fallacy of the stolen concept). See above. Remember: Fallacies do not make for sound intellection.

"For example, you and I would not exist if our parents had not taken action to cause our existence. A star exists because stellar gasses collapse under their own gravity, causing immense nuclear reactions, forming a star."

You make my point for me, Mr. X, only you seem not to see it. You say that a "star exists because stellar gases collapse under their own gravity," thus here you must posit the existence of one thing ("stellar gases which collapse under their own gravity") in order to explain the existence of something else ("A star"). You do nothing for your own argument here, but indeed seal mine!! Again, watch the stolen concepts here, Mr. X, they'll spell death to your position every time. Even in your own example, the action by which the causality you posit here takes place requires agents which already exist in order to participate in that action. Thus, your next statement:

"Causality is at the heart of existence."

completely misses the point entirely!!! Indeed, quite the reverse is the case: Existence is at the heart of causality! Even in your own example, you must presuppose existence ("stellar gases") to posit an instance of causality (collapsing into a star). Your own example is incoherent as a defense to your own position. Please re-read this section over, Mr. X, until you can grasp this. Many people struggle with stolen concepts, often because they can be very complicated to unravel. However, this is a wonderful example because it is relatively transparent and easy to spot.

"The universe is not eternal; it had a definite beginning and has a certain end--like it or not."

Correction: The 'universe' is the sum total of existence. The very concept 'beginning' can only have referential context within the universe. The concept 'beginning' cannot be applied to the whole (to do so only leads you into more stolen concepts; see above). Also, it is not a matter of whether or not I like it, facts are facts, and to dispute them only negates your position.

"Objectivism seems very closed-minded in relation to new knowledge that challenges our perceptions of reality, or that serves to refute knowledge once thought certain. Remember, it wasn't until the latter part of the 20th century that it was discovered that there were other galaxies beyond our own. Until then, it was believed certain that the Milky Way was the sum total of the universe."

Mr. X, you have already established for the record that you do not have a firm grasp of Objectivist principles, both by your own admission and by example of your own failure to be able to cope with them in our 'debate' (cf. your commitment to stolen concepts above). Every attempt to aim a new dart of contention against Objectivist thought has resulted in dismal futility for you. Therefore, your statement here must be considered by reference to the source from which it issues.

The discovery of yet more galaxies beyond ours does not contradict the fundamentals of Objectivism. Galaxies are collections of existence. But Objectivism already recognizes that existence exists. Thus, the discovery of new galaxies, while new information about reality, is in conflict with none of Objectivism's foundational principles.

"You have asked me repeatedly if I believe man has the right to 'live for his own sake'. I have answered that question: Yes! I gave you a specific Bible verse stating this very fact, but you still seem to believe that if I have faith in God, then I no longer have a will of my own."

Pardon me, but I'm not sure I remember where you offered a specific Bible verse stating anything about Man's right to exist for his own sake. Perhaps you are referring to the passage regarding your position on Man's free will (Syrach 15:11-15), but this passage makes no reference to the concept 'rights' nor does it inform a doctrine of Man's individual rights. This passage does nothing but acknowledge the fact that man indeed has free will (i.e., he is not a pre-programmed robot serving some hidden 'plan'). Is this the passage you're referring to? If I overlooked the passage you're mentioning above, please re-direct my attention to it, for it must have slipped past me.

Meanwhile, while you're at it, can you cite for me a verse in the Bible that defines the concept of Man's individual rights, what the basis of that concept is, and how it can be integrated with passages throughout the Bible which clearly violate the objective concept of Man's individual rights? (See one of my earlier messages for just a few of these violations, such as provisions for the practice of slave ownership.)

Also, I do not hold that because you have faith in your god-belief that you "no longer have a will of [your] own." Indeed, I never said anything like this. I do hold, however, that the religious program, to the extent that it is practiced consistently and its philosophical bases taken seriously, can paralyze a man's ability to reason and thus incapacitate the effectiveness of his will. I offer the history of the Catholic church as evidence of the unprecedented hysteria and unimaginable brutality which result when faith doctrines annihilate reason in societal proportions.

"I have the right to live any way I choose,"

I do not argue with this, so long as "any way [you] choose" does not constitute the violation of another's individual rights. I do not argue that you have no right to be a Christian any more than I would argue that another person does not have the right to be a Buddhist, or that I do not have the right to hold to Objectivist principles. I'm just wondering how you can integrate your position, that you have the right to live any way you choose, with the tenets of biblical philosophy.

"but since I believe in a higher moral law, I believe there are consequences for living outside of this law. This belief however, does not limit my freedom of choice."

I do not have a problem with this so much as it is considered in the context of your choice to follow Christian beliefs. Again, this is your right, to be a Christian, just as it is my right not to be a Christian. After all, it was you who first contacted me, not the other way around. It was you who wanted to challenge my ideas, not the other way around.

"I also choose to live for my own sake; it is for my sake that I choose to live by the Christian philosophy, just as you choose to live by the Objectivist philosophy.

So, are you saying that there is a selfish consideration at the root of your choice to be a Christian and obey "scripture"?

"Having faith in God does not prevent me from striving for or achieving greatness."

I suppose the validity of this statement would depend on several things, such as:

1. In which 'god' do you have faith?
2. How seriously do you apply this faith, and what are the essential ideas at its root?
3. What is the understanding of 'greatness' presupposed in the above sentence, and how is it achieved?
4. Are b) an c) above in any way in conflict with one another?
5. Whose greatness do you achieve through your own striving?

Etc.

"Jesus said 'be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.' I do not need to live a life devoid of emotion, compassion or spirituality to achieve the goals I set for myself, whatever they may be."

I do not doubt, nor have I ever intimated to the contrary, that you "live a life devoid of emotion, compassion or spirituality." I declare that my life is also not devoid of emotion, compassion or spirituality. I don't think these are at issue here, are they? What is at issue, however, is whether the respective systems on which our convictions are founded offer a means of distinguishing knowledge from emotions, and which identifies their proper relationship. I know Objectivism does this explicitly, and I know that religion does not (indeed, there is much evidence in religious writing which shows that such manner of thought fails to distinguish between the identity of knowledge and the identity of emotion; this is one of religion's most fundamental epistemological problems).

"I fail to see how Objectivism could possibly improve on my ability to live my life."

Be vigilant not to confuse your failure to assess properly the virtues of Objectivism with an alleged failure of the system itself. The two (your assessment of Objectivism and Objectivism itself) are not equals. You state that you basically see no value in Objectivism as it could be applied to your life. But you have also demonstrated that you do not understand it. I have pointed you to many sources which should help you understand it. If you do not want to examine them, that's your call. If you do not want to understand, that, too, is your call. If you simply do not want to be an Objectivist yourself, it is no one else's loss. I am not out for 'converts.'

"Let us then discuss your misrepresentation of Christianity, namely the definition of faith. Take for example the 'quote' you have used many times, regarding Jesus' statement that we should 'wish' a mountain to move. In a previous letter to you I substituted 'basis' with 'proof' in an honest attempt to simplify your statement. Here, you have substituted 'faith' with the word 'wish'--two words that have absolutely nothing in common, except perhaps in your mind."

In order to investigate your allegation that I have "substituted 'faith' with the word 'wish'" in order to misrepresent Christian ideas, let us cite the original source in question:

Matthew 17:20: "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you." (KJV)

Now, what did I say?

In my message dated 23 Feb ("Re: One more time around..."), in discussing the above issue (Matt. 17:20 et al.), I wrote:

<< Perhaps you are referring to my insistence that believers live up to the boasts of their "Scriptures," such as the claim that one can wish a mountain into the sea if he has "faith as a grain of mustard seed" (Matt. 17:20)? >>

Indeed, I did use the word 'wish' as you have identified, but the question is: did I use the word 'wish' to replace the word 'faith'? No, Mr. X, I didn't. I used 'wish' to replace the words 'shall say unto' in the Matthew passage. You argue that this is an unjustified synonym or, perhaps condensed euphemism? (And at one point you accused me of semantics!) Well, what would the act of saying unto a mountain "Remove hence to yonder place" presuppose? I would say that it would presuppose a desire - or wish - that the mountain remove itself, just as the Matthew verse promises.

Keep in mind that St. Paul, the essential founder of Christian dogma, equated 'faith' with 'hope', for he writes in Romans 8:24 that "we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?" To the Ephesians (2:8) he wrote "For by grace are ye saved through faith..." Between these two verses an equation between 'faith' and 'hope' is strongly suggested. And of course, in the famous Hebrews 11:1 an author attempts to define faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." How is 'hope' and 'wish' essentially unequivalent? Both express the desire of goals not yet accomplished. How would substituting the word 'hope' with the word 'wish' in the above passages destroy the essence of their meanings? One could say "I hope we have halibut for dinner tonight," or "I wish that we could have halibut for dinner tonight." Essentially, there is no difference, save for nuance of meaning dependent on context. Hence, I don't know what you're argument is here, Mr. X.

Regardless, this latter does not matter so much because my use of the word 'wish' was not implemented to replace the word 'faith' in the above context, but to condense Matthew 17:20's "shall say unto" into a single word, so any attempt here to cite a confusion on my part is moot.

But, perhaps you don't want to demonstrate your faith by commanding a mountain to remove itself and cast itself into a local sea. Actually, I can't blame you for this, for it would be quite an embarrassment to attempt such a feat. Nonetheless, there are many boasts in the Bible (specifically in the New Testament) which claim to give healing powers to believers. Doesn't Paul speak of this as one of the "gifts of the spirit"? (See for ex. I Cor. 12:9, 28 & 30.) If so, then, as a believer, you may be able to offer me some service here. Tell you what, let us make a deal. I have needed corrective lenses (glasses, contact lenses) since I was in fourth grade. I recognize that my eyes are steadily getting worse and worse every year. Not a lot worse, but the increase in disability is annoyingly noticeable to me. Now, I could rely on reason and go get corrective surgery, and this may eliminate my need to wear glasses for many years to come. Or, you can rely on your faith and pray to have my eyes "healed" through your faith in God. So, here's my deal: If you arrange to have "the Big Guy upstairs" cure me of my visual impairments so that I do not need to wear glasses any more through your faith and prayer, then I just might give your faith claims a second look. Now, no cheating. I'm not going to give you my address so that you can come to my place, sneak in and drug me so that an optical surgery could be performed on my eyes without me knowing this. This is going to have to be a genuine healing miracle, as the Bible claims is possible to those who believe. No alternatives will be accepted (unless of course, you'd like to finance my surgery... we could negotiate a deal there perhaps... but that would do nothing for your faith claims...). You see, Mr. X, I'm one of those annoying people who like to see a person's claims demonstrated for me. Call me a man of "little faith." Indeed, I have no faith. But that shouldn't hinder an all-powerful God, through whom "all things are possible," right? Indeed, I see no reason why your faith should not be sufficient. Furthermore (as I anticipate evasions here), if you claim that you do not have the "gift of healing," (possibly your faith is not the size of a grain of mustard?), it is most likely the case that you either know someone in your parish who does have the "gift of healing* who could supply whatever agency of intermediacy would be necessary for God to arrange my forthcoming improved eyesight, or perhaps in your personal relationship with "the Lord" you can ask "Him" to introduce you to someone who has the "gift of healing"? After all, didn't Jesus say "nothing shall be impossible to you"??? (And you thought I lacked a sense of humor? Why, man, humor me! Heal me!)

Please let me know when I should expect my new vision!! I can hardly wait to dump these dang glasses!

"You seem confused over the hypothetical situation I proposed in which you might risk your life to save another."

Nonetheless, I had already referred you to Rand's essay "The Ethics of Emergencies" in her book The Virtue of Selfishness which provides tremendous insight into the scope of rational ethical choices in such situations. I suggest you read this essay before you continue to inquire on this topic in order to have some background on the issue from an Objectivist perspective.

"You use the term 'value' when speaking of your family, as if they were possessions to be collected."

I have never stated that I consider other persons, whether family or otherwise, are "possessions to be collected." Nor can such an inference be drawn from any statement I have thus far submitted. This is your own projection here, Mr. X, you're grasping for straws, and I submit that it is motivated by your intention to smear Objectivism and/or Objectivists in spite of the fact that you simply do not know what you're talking about.

Now, with you continually disunderstanding my comments and turning them into something they do not say, why should I continue answering your questions here? After all, you haven't even attempted to answer ANY of my questions so far!!!! Face it, Mr. X, not only are you virtually completely ignorant of Objectivism as a systematic whole, you have already deemed it unfit for yourself, even though your every attempt to come against it results in dismal and embarrassing failure!

What's up with this?

"And you call Christianity depraved..."

Indeed, I do!

"Live long and prosper"

I intend to, and I shall, by Reason.

Anton Thorn

___________________________________________________________________