Last night's Objectivism Club meeting went well, though I didn’t get to finish the introduction to Objectivism that I was writing, so I won’t be putting it online for a while. We had a decent turnout, and a very positive response from the audience. One delusional Keynes-worshipper apparently came to the meeting solely to argue economics with us – and I was more than willing to take him on. Later that night, I read some positive responses to our meeting on a local forum, and saw the usual ad-hominem attacks against “extremism.” I wrote a lengthy reply on the forum talking about some of my experiences with Objectivism, and included it below. I don’t really expect to convince anyone, but it’s been a long week of classes, and I needed to let some steam off.

Here is a parable about something that happened to me a long, long time ago, when Hobbes was just a search engine, and resnet was little more than a repository for porn:

When I entered TAMU as a freshman, I was a hardcore liberal democrat, brainwashed by years of public education and reform-Judaism “social justice” BS. I wanted to be politically involved, so I joined the Aggie Democrats. From the day I met them, they impressed me as the friendliest, most accepting, tolerant, open-minded, non-judgmental, un-critical people around. We all sat around and made fun of the stupid republicans, with their silly religious dogma, their fetus-worship, their hidden homophobia, and their evil plans for selling the country to the rich. The democrats were real nice, agreeable folks.

Some time after this, I met a group of radical capitalists, who shall remain nameless, other than to say that one of them has posted on this thread. I found them to be the most arrogant, self-righteous, stubborn people I knew. Everything I knew about politics, economics, human nature, and even some of morality, they told me I was completely wrong on. No matter how much we argued, they would not back down, compromise, or relent in any way shape, or form. I was used to high school debate, so I was confident in my ability to out-debate anyone, even by sheer force of will, but these people stuck to their position and refused to budge an inch!

Now, normally, I would just dismiss someone as hopeless after a while, but there was one thing that kept me coming back (besides the booze) – I couldn’t refute all their claims. As wrong as they seemed, and as contrary as they were to everything I knew, I gradually had to admit one error after another on my part. It took several months, but before I knew it, it was I who was arguing with the my old buddies, the democrats! I didn’t change all my views, but I found my whole worldview completely turned around. The stubbornness and arrogance I saw on their part was part real, but mostly it stemmed from my indignation that someone could be so serious about his position, and arrogant enough to say “you’re wrong, and I’m right” and refuse to back down.

Imagine if I had simply judged the two groups based on their attitude and walked away in resignation and self-righteous anger as soon as I had heard a contrary view. I’d still be a hopeless and ignorant commie. I learned from my experience to never judge someone’s ideas by his presentation, attitude, or arrogance. Just because someone is utterly persistent about his position doesn’t make him right – but it doesn’t make him wrong either. This is why I simply ignore anyone who claims that an individual or group with a particular viewpoint is dogmatic/stubborn/arrogant/conceited/stupid/fanatical/radical/intolerant/judgemental. What such name-calling really means is that the opposition is either unable or unwilling to offer a real response to an argument, and would rather resort to ad-hominem and slander in a cheap attempt to discredit his opponent. Sure, some of the traits I mentioned are genuine character flaws – but they say nothing about the validity of a person’s ideas.

A year or so after I became a capitalist, someone recommended that I read Ayn Rand. I went to the library, and picked up the only book I found – “The Cult of Ayn Rand.” I immediately realized that the author was engaging in the same kind of ad-hominem attacks that I engaged in not so long ago, and became even more interested in this “Ayn Rand.” I looked up a few websites, watched a few videos, and found that I agreed with the ideas perfectly. Not too long after, I was considering starting an Objectivist club at TAMU. One person after another warned me about the “cult” I would be joining. I decided that if this is a cult, I was already in it for life – and this was before I had met any Objectivists, or even read any of Ayn Rand’s books.

I’ve met quite a few people who call themselves “Objectivists” since then. A few of them do in fact treat Ayn Rand’s philosophy as a religion – uncritically memorizing what they read -- without evaluating, concretizing, or digesting ideas. Most of these people simply rejected one religion – some version of Christianity – and accepted another. While real, this group is a minority. Most of the Objectivists I have met have an earnest desire for knowledge, and before they accept any idea as true, they subject it to the harshest scrutiny, evaluating it from every angle, and integrating it with the rest of the knowledge. They are unafraid to question Objectivism, and before accepting any idea, they consider all possible alternatives and counter-arguments to it. But they don’t spend their time dwelling on the real or imagined personal flaws of Ayn Rand or other prominent philosophers, as some so-called “Objectivists” like to do. They don’t dismiss a person’s ideas because of they way he presents them, goes about his personal life, or what kind of friends he has in an attempt to evade any actual thinking. All those things are certainly relevant when evaluating a person – but not when considering the validity of his ideas.