|
Editor's Note: This article was
originally published on SoloHQ and refers to the experiences encountered
by the author within that organization; it has been reprinted here as an
example of the tolerant attitude needed in order to spread the principles
of Objectivism and convince sincere thinkers to adopt them.
Six months ago, having left a religious forum I
moderated because I could no longer give an intellectual sanction due to
its general intolerance of any who might actually defend their points of
view with reason, I found SOLO through a Yahoo search. An admirer of
Atlas Shrugged who hoped to learn more about Objectivism (as all my
previous forays inevitably hit a member of the ARI), I came with all of my
lop-sided principles.
I had already been an atheist for about three years. I was a vehement
defender of individual rights (or so I thought), and I was already in my
own little crusades against polylogism, post-modernism, anti-objective
metaphysics, and all the other stuff that I had a hard time believing
people took seriously. Unconvinced by the "arguments" of these movements,
I felt like I was battling the world all by myself. As far as I was
concerned, this was fine: if I died without changing a thing, at least I
had lived my life with dignity and integrity.
However, I had some contradictions of my own, borne out, I thought, by
compassion. I was for public education. I was for steep, progressive
taxation. I thought that public libraries were one of the greatest
inventions of western civilization. I was even socialist for a very, very
short period of time.
So, when I came to SOLO, I listened carefully at first. I studied
Objectivism on my own, hardly speaking at the forum. I was, first and
foremost, learning. After all, the philosophical themes in Atlas
Shrugged made at least some sense. As I was studying philosophy
(on my own, as I had dropped out of the philosophy program at my college
for a variety of reasons), I could pick out the arguments fairly easily. I
had already adopted the metaphysics and epistemology on my own. The
ethics, a subject that I had been desperately grappling with for a long
time, pulled me in easily enough. But the notion of unbridled capitalism
raised a lot of red flags for me. My objections, of course, were what I
thought I knew from history: a lack of government controls leads to unsafe
working conditions, subsistence-level wages, child labor, and rampant
pollution.
Naturally, I wanted answers to these, so I presented them, as clearly as I
could, to the discussion group.
Outside of small a joke about flogging leftists that I didn't take well
(like I said, I had previously hit upon members of the ARI), the answers
were calm, thorough, and helpful. I was given refutations, both logically
and by having the evidence laid out before me (interpretation of the data
was left up to me). I was pointed to outside resources that could give me
honest facts, and was encouraged, not to make a decision right away, but
to take some time to think for myself. That was shocking. I had always
done that anyway, but I had never actually been encouraged to do so.
Well, I did my research. I looked at my own arguments and picked out the
flaws. Seeing the problems, I demolished all of my politics, picked out my
implicit illogical values, and embraced Objectivism. The culmination
occurred on a walk with my wife. Instead of my normal problems with
self-esteem, I realized, as a hard worker, an intellectually honest
person, and somebody who follows where the facts lead no matter what I
have to re-think in the process, I finally realized what she had been
telling me for years: that I deserve to be happy. And it is to my
happiness that I have worked since.
One thing I really appreciated, though, was how I was refuted here. I was
given not only refutations and answers, but I was treated with kindness
and the respectability that I feel an honest inquirer deserves, even if
the questions are riddled with absurd notions. This is how we must
approach those who might join us: give them respect; give them kindness;
and be honest with them. Let their own convictions guide them in their
understanding. If they follow the evidence, they, like I, will find their
home with us.
The most wonderful thing, I believe, about this entire piece, is this:
it's already been displayed to me that this group practices it. Let's make
sure to keep it that way.
Joe Trusnik is a writer for
SoloHQ and a contributor to The Rational Argumentator.
Give feedback on
this work at TRA's new forum, which you can access at
http://rationalarg.proboards24.com.
Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, the newest
means of notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find
it at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator.
You can sign up by sending an e-mail to
rationalargumentator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Click here to return to the Issue XXIII index.
Visit
TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues
of the magazine. Click
here. |
