What do Objectivists think about manipulating irrational beliefs to defend themselves from irrational adversaries?
Posted by Poplicola 8 years, 8 months ago to Ask the Gulch
I was recently re-reading part of Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" and wondered what Objectivists thought about how Asimov had his fictional society of scientists essentially rely on psychological warfare in the form of an artificial religion to defend itself against an irrational but numerically superior enemy.
At a less extreme level, would it be tolerable to Objectivists to acquiess in the preservation of a "Civic Religion" with respect to those who can not be convince to embrace Objectivism, if that belief system would, despite its lack of an Objective basis, result in society fostering an environment in which Objectivism could safely be practiced and expanded?
At a less extreme level, would it be tolerable to Objectivists to acquiess in the preservation of a "Civic Religion" with respect to those who can not be convince to embrace Objectivism, if that belief system would, despite its lack of an Objective basis, result in society fostering an environment in which Objectivism could safely be practiced and expanded?
Actions taken when threatened are a different matter, and those threats are contrary to a civil society.
Objectivism can be safely lived today and is expanding. You don't practice Objectivism. It's not a religion or theology.
Thus I think we agree that In a hierarchy of preferences an Objectivist Society that doesn't initiate force to make non-objectivists profess adherence to Objectivism would be an Objectivists' first choice.
Likewise, I think we would agree that an Arbitrary Totalitarian Theocracy bent on exterminating Objectivism would be the worst of worlds.
Now if we find ourselves in a mixed society with percentages of Objectivists, Well Meaning Tolerant People of Multiple Varying Faiths, and Foaming at the Mouth Fanatics Hell Bent on Achieving Numerical Superiority with a view to eventually Exterminating All Apostates, the Objectivist is presented with some choices.
1) Try to talk the crazies down to no avail.
2) Try to compete on numbers through rational dialog and high birth rates.
3) Do nothing until forced to take up arms when the crazies take over the government and start killing people
4) Try to form an alliance with the non-crazy non-objectivists to hold the crazies in check while there is still time.
5) Try to use Psy Ops to undermine the crazies.
It is with respect to Option 4 that a 'civic religion', (i.e. value set appealing to a generic creator notion) that motivates the various non-objectivists factions to unite against the crazies to preserve freedom of though could in that context be in an Objectivist's "best interest" until such time as the crazies were purged and a majority of society agreed to employ Objectivist reasoning in the Public Sphere.
In short, I'm arguing that it would be irrational to forsake employing workable non-objectivist approaches to warding off existential threats.
This brings to mind the exchange from Ghostbusters:
"Are you a God?"
"No."
"Then Die."
"The next time someone asks you if you are a God, say 'yes'."
Mystical thinking is why we have the enemies you're describing. Had we as a country maintained the ideas and principles of the majority of the Framers, we would have stayed out of the rest of the world's problems, traded fairly with all as individuals and businesses, and left our religions where they belong, in the churches, in the homes, and out of the public discourse and squares, we wouldn't now be having to deal with such people as you're describing and I seriously doubt that they would be attempting to draw us into an all out World War. Particularly had we maintained a solid defense against invasion only as intended.
So for myself, I'm an Objectivist and I intend to live the rest of my life as I've managed for several decades now, with reason and rational thought and I'll end my life with my principles in tact. The next time someone asks me if I'm a god, I'll simply walk away and leave them to their nonsense. And if the US get's too dangerous because of the idiocy, I'll simply go Galt. I owe nothing to the irrational man.
The FMFHBANS's are outside the realm of logical appeal to a large degree. So taking any such approach with them is going to result in predictable non-results. They are already engaging in psychological warfare with their own approaches: the are willing to lie, cheat, kill, etc. to further their cause. So to me, they have to be jarred out of their comfort zone by something they are not expecting or that gets their attention.
Yes, one can consider psychological warfare an attempt at coercion to a degree. However, if it is being employed in a defensive posture against one who has already openly declared their intention to kill you, I'm pretty comfortable with such actions as being responsive rather than initiatory. Once they are in a position to consider the reality of their position, they may come into a state less ruled by zealotry and hatred and one ruled more by self-preservation and introspection. It would be at that point that they may be willing to countenance change. At that point, psychological warfare must then shift to evangelism.
I would also note, however, that it is unlikely that these techniques will work on groups. Intellectual endeavors are ultimately individual, so part of the strategy must be to separate them from sources of conformative pressure that would prevent them from considering alternative viewpoints or prevent the seed of a new idea from taking hold. Because of prohibitions inherent in the FMFHBANS's code of conduct, however, against abandoning their religion, the threshold for conversion may be unreasonably high for most - especially when coupled with the intellectual demands of thought.
Understand that Obj.ism is first most a philosophy for the individual. Given the frustration of dealing with so many "anti-Obj.ists" (in various forms), we simply have to better educate others re Obj. principles and applications. But part of the problem is "Objectivists" not understanding the philosophy well enough to educate with clarity in order to eliminate all the misunderstandings others have.
First you can never and will never be able to have a reasonable conversation when you are using logic and the other is using emotion. ALL irrational beliefs are based on emotion and nothing else.
In order to get a person to the point of "rational" thought it is first imperative to destroy their belief system which in itself requires using their own irrational arguments against them, hence why Saul Ilinski's "Rules For Radicals" is so effective.
Once you successfully destroy their belief system using any means, even manipulating and "gaming" their beliefs, then and only then will their mind be open to replacing that belief vacuum with something. Logic and Reason.
Once they are open to logic and reason THEN and only then can you have productive conversations.
I guess the real question is this.
How important is it to YOU personally to "convert" someone? And do you really care at all whether they stay ignorant or not?
Biblical quote:
"...do not throw your pearls before the swine..."
Where we who argue for reason and facts have an ethical problem with intentionally lying to people, apparently many of our "opponents" in the public sphere of influence seem to have no problem with it whatsoever. (thus "Hands Up Don't Shoot").
People who can think rather than "feel", and reason instead of react seem to be in very short supply outside of the Gulch. Telling the truth and reasoning with people does not seem to make much of an impact.
But if we abandon that, what DO we represent.
On your "civic religion" question, it's hard to imagine establishing a "Church of Objectivism" so that we can claim religious persecution. From what I've seen lately, you'd have better luck mixing matter and anti-matter. ;-)
On your last point, by 'civic religion', I was think more of the strand of Deism practiced by some of The Founders that embraced Capitalism, the Protestant Work Ethic, and gave rise to the notion of inalienable rights as inviolable constraints on Governments' power to meddle with private property and voluntary economic transactions.
To have an actual "Church of Objectivism" you'd have to perhaps argue that it was your religious belief that God created Ayn Rand to be his Avatar on Earth so she could lead the irrational to rationality without revealing to her that he really existed since that would have defeated his goal of using her a vehicle to bring about the ultimate triumph of rationality.
Thanks for the laugh.
Objectivism, on the other hand, is based (or at least tries to be based) on a quest for understanding and logical analysis of available observable facts. It is not clear how these two very different world views can coexist.
However, "The ends don't justify the means."
There needs to be a balanced approach.
Using logic to convince someone their belief is irrational and/or incorrect is manipulating their belief because you are changing their mind.
Did you mean something like this or something else entirely?
Such as "gaming" their belief system to get the outcome you want.
I intended your last interpretation of "gaming" their belief system to get a favorable outcome, as we are assuming at that point that appeals to logic have failed. (i.e. that we are dealing with people who are zealots, who refuse to employ logic, or whose reasoning facilities are so under developed that they cannot yet recognize logically spurious arguments and as a result are only amenable to emotional and/or mystical argumentation.)
This might encompass arguing with them for a favorable interpretation of their existing beliefs or introducing them to a more appealing artificial belief system perhaps by creating the illusion that it is a "real" lost or underground sect that already exists within their own religion.
I would also consider the possibility of using technological means to create physical effects what would demonstrably invalidate or leverage aspects of their belief system. (e.g. covertly tunneling under a "sacred" site and undermining its foundation if their belief system was that they could never be defeated as long as it was standing or arranging for them to "discover" a forged archeaological artifact that cast doubt on their current beliefs.)
going GALT
If used properly causes or rather allows the individual to examine a personal belief system and evaluate it's worth - to the individual and having done his or her stance within any given society. Heinlein used the technique in any number of situations to show how an individual could cope with the group and retain personal morals, values and standards.
You see that acted out here every day so here is a small aid. Three types of people in discussions. One the Righteous with one fixed viewpoint to constantly preach allowing no changes. Score zero. Two the Debater who works only to score points but cares not much for any solution much less acting to that end. Score Zero. The third says - This one screwed up mess. What can be done about it. Looks at suggested answers, checks premises and conclusions then now get's to it knowing the completed goal is the only accolade worth pursuing.
The only religion that you have to fear is Islam.
It is anti-life and NOTHING will get in their way.
The only time you should fear anything is when your own life and livelihood are directly threatened.
"Gaming" doesn't work on master manipulators.
But it appears to me that Objectivists should not be about "manipulating" anyone's anything.
Manipulation is what the Progressive movement is all into. One could say that is true of all religions.
Nevertheless, I refuse to let go of my own personal belief system of a hereafter.
It's freedom of religion all mine and no one can take it. Nyah! Nyah!
Those who you claim to be incapable of embracing Objectivism are not any serious threat to Objectivists; The James Taggarts of the world. It is only the productive individuals who have any capacity to be a threat, or to fuel individuals who otherwise would pose no threat.
By directing your effort into creating a civil (or not so civil) religion, you are helping to destroy the minds of non-productive and productive individuals. In other words: you would do equal damage to the numerically superior enemy as to your self.
If your enemy was truly that beyond any reason, then what threat would they truly pose without those otherwise rational individuals who aid them? Why would you direct any effort into helping them by creating a religion that would only feed them more minds to consume?
"To be religious is to is to effect in some way and in some measure a vital adjustment (however tentative and incomplete) to whatever is reacted to or regarded implicitly or explicitly as worthy of serious and ulterior concern."
From The Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilious Ferm, Ph. D., copyright 1945 by
Philosophilical Library, Inc., Published by Popular Books, Secaucus, N.J., ISBN 0-89009-746-1
That aside, I could not embrace anything that is not based in profound honesty. After all, aren't we all looking and reaching for 'Ethics' across the board? I do think that our intentions should match the means to our ends. That would be my hope anyway.
Presently, in the land of the blind, this objectivist king is not of the inclination to rule as a despot, but more as a student of the blind in the way that my first wife taught me more about myself in our four years of marriage than I had learned in the 32 yeas prior.
truth. Of course, if Objectivism became the philos-
ophy of the majority of the country, the other people
would still be left free to believe what they wanted,
including sending their children to (privately-funded) religious schools; the government would
not prescribe the ideas which people must believe in; but this would not be a Civic Religion.
maybe, as long as "we objectivists" didn't look down at "the religionists"
and create a caste society, don't you think? . is that possible? -- j
.
I'm an Objectivist, and I would view the growth of such sects as a generally good sign. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4ouQ...
But I wouldn't want to promote the creation of such a sect, because the appeal to the supernatural opens the door wide to unreason of all sorts and is dangerous to promote.
Plus, we can promote a rational view of life through a "Church of Life" or some such that would promote basic Objectivist ideas mostly through parable and practical counsel. That could appeal to people who don't handle abstraction well, without deceiving or manipulating them.
edit: Have I missed something, here?
I don't advocate promoting Objectivism via religion. I agree it would be a contradiction. But I'm happy to see Enlightenment ideals (i.e. essential Objectivist ideals) embraced wherever that takes place. I prefer success-oriented Mormons like Mitt Romney and Orson Scott Card, who mostly live by American values, to the Taliban and ISIL.
"Plus, we can promote a rational view of life through a "Church of Life" or some such that would promote basic Objectivist ideas mostly through parable and practical counsel. That could appeal to people who don't handle abstraction well, without deceiving or manipulating them."
If so, I'm happy to use "Temple," or "Shrine," or "Fellowship."
The point would be to have a secular chain of meeting houses where a rational, life-focused philosophy would be celebrated and taught. Contrast that with the academic, abstract lecture style of typical Objectivist conventions like Rand's Ford Hall Forum lectures or the conference I run, The Atlas Summit. http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a...
There are plenty of secular venues for conventions, lectures, courses, and discussions of Objectivism and its rational, life-focused application without the contradictory implications of it being another place to accept beliefs. Of the many misconceptions 'out there' already is that Objectivism is just another faith of parroting followers with Ayn Rand as its deity. I think your suggestion runs counter to the principles you want to teach.
Your points are well taken. The "Life Workshop" or whatever you call it would need many intellectual heroes other than Rand.
https://youtu.be/n6NPq_kPSUM
They do find another way, so it's a pat happy ending.
But suppose it turned out there were no other way? Suppose the people were determined to believe in a god and that he wanted them to murder those they suspect displeased god, and Captain Picard could make it stop by telling them god wanted them to respect one another's rights and to solve their problems using reasoning based on observation?
In this situation I would feel an ugly utilitarian temptation to give them the Objectivist commandments, even though I think it's wrong. I think I would get out of the predicament by questioning the premise that the made-up religion solution isn't guaranteed to work and the truth isn't guaranteed to fail.
(BTW, I do not agree with the YouTube video title saying the clip is about religion. It's actually about the question of knowingly creating a false religion for a benevolent purpose.)
Primitive people ascribe "god status" to advanced technology.
Load more comments...