You keep using that word., "Reason"

It occurs to me that the term “reason,” as used in the common parlance, seems to refer only and specifically to the process by which one draws one’s starting premises to their logical conclusions.

In fact, reason is the process by which all of one’s ideas, including especially one’s base premises, are compared against reality as either congruent or dissonant.*

It’s a startling linguistic error, and it makes possible some truly bizarre statements. For instance, it is only under such a frozen abstraction that it is possible for leftists and pragmatists to imagine that the totalitarian nightmares of the 20th century, such as Communism, can be attributed to “reason.”

But Communism killed because its base premises – i.e. those of altruism, that a man’s moral purpose is self-sacrifice – were unreasonable; not because those premises were drawn honestly and completely to their grim and inevitable conclusions.

The only antidote is to operate on the opposite premise: that of egoism, capitalism, and individual rights. And indeed, it is only to the extent that nations do operate on those, opposite, principles, that they are prosperous and safe from degenerating into totalitarian nightmares.

When confronted with this, their continual call is that their premises are not to blame. Instead, the solution is to “not go to extremes.” But the fact is, no matter how thorough or half-measured one is in drawing the premises of altruism out (i.e. one’s “moderateness” or “extremeness”), logically speaking those same premises lead to the same conclusions every time. And so long as they imagine that they can still hold on to the premise of altruism (by “not going to extremes”), then they will slowly and inevitably abandon those opposite principles (egoism, capitalism, individual rights) which are the only thing saving them from the abyss.

To try to “not go to extremes” – without changing one’s base premises – is like trying to avoid driving off a cliff by letting off of the gas a little – while not turning the steering wheel even the slightest degree. Either way, it's only delaying the inevitable.

So even under their own crazy mis-definition, they’re wrong. But this does reveal something further about their mentality...




What I see in the Pragmatists, who insist on blaming consistency for the crimes of Communism et al, is a fear of confronting the fact that altruism’s inescapable logical conclusion is the gulag and the concentration camps.

Their problem is: they see that, in logic, altruism must lead there. They know that the thing cannot hold; Something Must Go.

Their conclusion, however, is to try to abandon logic rather than altruism. A proposition that is, and there really isn’t any gentler way of putting this, completely insane. But good luck talking them out of it. Remember: they’ve already done away with logic.

Think of that the next time you hear someone plead that “we mustn’t go to extremes!”

-Inspector



*Of course, most people don’t employ reason when it comes to their base premises, and it shows

A very fitting analogy. The fourth and commonly regarded as the strongest force, the strong nuclear force, is only beaten by the inescapability of reality. Deniable over finite periods of time, it is ultimately inevitable.

We don't even need historical and practical evidence of why altruism is bad and egoism is good, yet we have it in droves. But as always, people who choose not to see will frequently flail away blindly and violently.

It is why I have abandoned most attempts to reason with socialists and others; I was appealing to something that wasn't there. Even worse, it was potentially there to begin with but was cast aside by their own volition.

In Sweden, the conflict between self-interest and altruism is easy to see. An ancient mentality that permeates all throughout this society says that altruism is the only proper philosophy. Still many people naturally strive to improve their quality of life. Like most, they want to live well. This undying - yet sinful, it is implied - but in many, weak sentiment is fundamentally at odds with what they've been told and subsequently tell others to believe. It creates chaotic minds.

Most know the real concept of justice by heart and emotion, if not by reason. Yet our word for "justice" pretty much equals to "equality". Not literally, but implicitly. A real word for justice as we here know it doesn't even exist in the language. But it's there, as anyone who has been exposed to it can feel. It's that unnamed "thing" they crave when someone rapes their sister or murders their friend. Just like egoism means, well, what it means to almost anyone but Objectivists...and still people want happiness in their lives.

These things can be suppressed but they are always there, even where I live. That's a testament to how much damn sense they make, if I ever saw one. Though I suspect I'm wandering off-topic.


As usual, your post delivers more truths, and is appreciated.

Thanks for the kind words, L-C.

You again have my sympathies for your unfortunate locality. Here in America, altruism is unquestioned and unquestionable to academics and religious types, but most ordinary people try to at least balance altruism and egoism. Of course, totally opposite principles can't be balanced but it's better than unmitigated altruism.

Also, academics and holy rollers over here are seen with a certain amount of distrust, still. The latter if only because there lingers the public truce on the subject of religion that holds over from America's founding. I.e. there are just so many religions here that people know there would be problems if they didn't mind their own business and keep religious matters mostly to themselves. That's one reason why the rise of the non-denominational mega-churches is scary. Because their basic mission is to eliminate all that and bring religion loudly into the public sphere. It's un-American, really.

....



..... You watched The Princess Bride?

Inspector? Watch The Princess Bride? Is there something.... inconceivable about that?

So if I got this right: there's a bit of a religious MAD doctrine going on in the US? If you are familiar with the term. And those generic mega churches seek to pile all religions on one side so as to amass more power - all in the name of religion for its own sake. That's a bit more ominous than, for example, a Christian squabbling against a Muslim.

"Give me anything but truth, it is the one thing I cannot bear."

It seems they have mortal fear of it, to the point where they'd rather let it chase them off a cliff, dragging everyone else down with them if necessary, than face it.

Eehhh, I was thinking of the wrong movie, for some reason I thought you meant The Princess Diaries.... which would totally make me question your manliness.

If you mean Mutually Assured Destruction, then yes. I think that is very much a tenet of America - that people recognized that keeping their religion in the private sphere was necessary due to the centuries of religious wars in Europe.

The non-denominational mega-churches are basically founded on the idea that this truce is unacceptable, in many cases especially because it has allowed the rise and acceptance of secular attitudes and people.* This is unacceptable enough to them that they are willing give up on their individual denominations if they can therefore do away with this "truce" and thereby turn society into a more religious one, both publicly and privately.



*Of both the sane and insane variety - not that they make any distinction between the two. And that is quite telling of their priorities.

Ah. That is a bit of a difference.