She further stipulates that all concepts are formed from perceptual information ...

All concepts are formed by first differentiating two or more existents from other existents. (ITOE, 12)
Certain categories of concepts of consciousness require special consideration. These are concepts pertaining to the products of psychological processes, such as "knowledge," "science," "idea," etc. (ITOE, 12)

Mr. Milenberg,

I am interested to see your extrapolation on the comments above before I proceed to respond to them in greater detail. In particular, you wrote:

“It should be remembered however that gaining the understanding of others depends not only on the complexity or difficulty of the subject, but also on one's ability to teach it.  Personally, I think I could explain any of the principles of rational philosophy to just about anyone of average intelligence and gain their understanding it not too long a time.”

I am highly interested as to how you would go about doing this – assuming that you are faced with a person of average intelligence, who has not studied philosophy either formally or in his leisure time, whose principal sources of information have been the “mainstream media,” who is “softly” religious (i.e., an occasional churchgoer who has not thought about the philosophical implications of his beliefs, as most American Christians are today), and who is much more interested in the concretes immediately surrounding him than he is in any kinds of abstractions. His vocabulary does not extend beyond the words employed by the majority of Americans on an everyday basis to enable them to get through their day.

How would you start communicating your ideas to such a person, and what methods would you use to ensure that he remains receptive to your ideas throughout the process?

If, indeed, you have a method for conveying rational philosophy, I would like to know about it. If it works at convincing people, then I – and any other willing person who makes the effort to learn it – should be able to use it as well.

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II
Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com
Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html
Author, The Best Self-Help is Free: http://rationalargumentator.com/selfhelpfree.html      
Author, The Progress of Liberty Blog: http://progressofliberty.today.com/       

Mr. Milenberg,

Thank you for your most recent post. The method you outlined would be extremely effective at presenting the underpinnings of a rational philosophy within certain contexts. Particularly, it would work in a mentor-student setting, with yourself as the mentor – formal or informal – who is by some means recognized as being in charge of directing the discussion and, in effect, teaching everyone else. Most likely, this approach would work best in a one-on-one setting and perhaps an extremely small group setting where a few hours are available for developing the points you have mentioned and addressing any questions and disagreements that might arise.

It might also work if one is lecturing to an audience for an extended period of time and is recognized as having the floor, or – better yet – if one is writing a philosophical treatise or some other extended work where this kind of extensive presentation is necessary and expected.

However, there exist other contexts where – for simple lack of time if nothing else – other approaches are necessary.

For instance, in most social conversations, there is no clear dominant party, and attempting to become the dominant party is seen as impertinent or even rude. And yet these conversations – among friends, co-workers, relatives, or even short-term acquaintances at a conference or other widely attended formal event – comprise a large fraction of human interactions. The expectation for these conversations is that each party contribute perhaps a few short sentences before letting someone else respond. If the conversation stays confined to small talk or concretes, all is well. But quite frequently, someone will insert a highly flawed “hard” religious or statist sentiment and will do so by using what seems to the majority of the group’s members as a rather catchy expression (what Ayn Rand called a “bromide”). 

The serious deficiency we advocates of rational philosophy have is that the other side’s views are readily expressible through one-liners, and ours are not. We certainly cannot, in this context, engage in the building up from fundamentals of an entire philosophy. We need to quickly counter the flawed statement with a similarly short riposte – rebutting the particular claim that was made, and nothing else – because there is simply no time for anything else.

So, what is to be done? I aim, in these situations, for my response to be 1) compelling to the other people involved by invoking shared values that would be endangered by the religious or governmental imposition, 2) non-offensive to even the originator of the remark – which requires a few concessions and qualifications where they do not detract from the essence of my opposition, and perhaps even a few words of praise regarding any of the speaker’s genuinely good intentions, merits, etc., 3) as easily accessible to the other participants in the conversation as the mantra it seeks to rebut. This is not easy to do, especially on short notice. But it must be done, or else socialism and religious fanaticism will take over because they are easier for the majority of people to understand.

What would you, Mr. Milenberg, do if you find yourself in this situation? Do you have a different approach that you would recommend here?

There are other complicating factors to consider as well. I am all for teaching people everything one can about the fundamentals of good thinking – but one must have willing students in order to do so, and those students must take initiative to a great degree in order to learn successfully. But such already exceptional people are rare. Most people would not wish to touch philosophy with a 20-foot pole, and yet many of these people hold ideas with highly dangerous implications (mostly through simple ignorance, the influence of tradition, a tendency to jump to conclusions too quickly, etc., but not through malice or any kind of Toohey-like disposition). They would not take initiative to learn from any of us, and if we tried to teach them too explicitly, they would become offended and even antagonistic.

A further complication is that the person with whom one converses might have some manner of power over oneself. One’s boss, instructor, local government official, or some comparable figure would almost never like to think of himself as being “taught” by a subordinate. He is the superior; he gives the orders; he expects to be esteemed, or he will hurt you. If one is fortunate, one will have a fairly tolerant and humane superior who appreciates one’s input, provided that one makes at least a token recognition of the superior’s priorities and understanding of the matter. But, unless one is explicitly invited to do so, one should never directly deny the statements and values expressed by one’s superior – for prudential reasons alone. One can, of course, think what one will and say what one will to persons whose confidence one can trust when the superior is not around. But in the superior’s direct presence, one should only try to plant little “seeds” of ideas, all the while enabling the superior to think that these are in fact developments of his ideas and ways of facilitating his values through an application of his subordinate’s talents.

It would be excellent, of course, if one’s superior makes at least incremental improvements in his treatment of his subordinates. For instance, convincing one’s boss not to promote people on the basis of seniority alone or convincing one’s local government official to perhaps give businesses enough time and convenient ways to file the paperwork required by regulations would both be major accomplishments. But how to persuade here? What would you do, Mr. Milenberg? What would others following this thread suggest?

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II
Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com
Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html
Author, The Best Self-Help is Free: http://rationalargumentator.com/selfhelpfree.html      
Author, The Progress of Liberty Blog: http://progressofliberty.today.com/       

Mr. Milenberg,

Thank you for your responses to the situations I had in mind.

Point taken regarding the one-liners. It should be possible to build up a nice stock of them with enough prior thought and reflection on how to express philosophical fundamentals powerfully and concisely. Tailoring the one-liners to respond to specific popular one-liners of a statist or militant religious nature would also definitely be useful here.

You write, “It is true that most people are really not interested in philosophy, and so clearly it is necessary to get them interested in it.  This can be done by explaining the benefits of philosophy and also the dangers posed by bad philosophies.  Those people who can not be persuaded to take it up will have to be judged as lost souls and forgotten.“

I agree that some people – especially already somewhat intellectually inclined people – would be benefited by this approach. The problem I see here is that the majority of the people cannot be persuaded in this manner – simply because they do not have the necessary “specialization of mind” – for lack of a better term – to appreciate it. They spend the vast majority of their time on much more concrete tasks and issues, and they might well be acting in a manner fully consistent with rational philosophy without explicitly recognizing that fact. But they might lack the time and the energy to learn an entire system of thought in a short period of time. It seems to me a better idea, in these cases, to illustrate rational ideas using concrete examples that might be personally relevant to the people being addressed.

Unless this is done, of course, the majority of the people will continue to elect bad politicians, vote for bad laws, and engage in other activities that are highly damaging to freedom and progress. I do not believe in ever judging anyone as a “lost soul”, because this would concede that one is willing to have that person fight against oneself – and one would be unwilling to take measures in self-defense. In the intellectual field, our only weapons are persuasion and interaction with others. If we surrender those weapons, we simply let the others – who we think have dangerously wrong ideas – inflict harm on us with impunity. It is not possible, in the real world, to ignore other people and just hope that they will go away. One needs at least be polite to everyone (including the government officials responsible for bad regulations!) and, if one does not wish to help others understand the truth (which by itself is entirely understandable), it is wise at least to have adequate protections in place to ensure that the others do not pose an active threat.

I would like to address a point you made earlier.

You wrote, “If truth is divorced from logic then philosophy, as well as the whole of knowledge itself, reduces to a con game.  The ''truths" that are imparted to the masses in this manner will last only until the next con artist comes along to mislead them again.  It should be pointed out that there is philosophy which is advanced in precisely this manner.  It is called religion, and it is a fine illustration of the kind of philosophy and understanding which results from this process. “

Several responses:

1) Whatever might be said about the errors of religion, one fact is striking. Religions have survived for millennia – with significant adaptations, of course, but nonetheless, they have survived and maintained massive followings. When it comes to sheer effectiveness at maintaining adherents, the major religions are doing something right – although it is difficult to pinpoint it, and I would not necessarily conclude therefrom that advocates of rational philosophy should be using the same techniques. But I do think that there are effective persuasion methods and skills that are independent of any philosophy as such. Think of them as weapons in a war. A war has certain causes for which it is fought, and also has means by which it is fought. In philosophical wars, the ideas are the causes and the methods of persuasion are the means.

2) If the masses receive a truth, for however long, this is preferred to them not receiving it at all. Remember that time is crucial to consider in bringing about the kind of world we desire and would wish to live in. The method I suggest of focusing on conclusions might be the only one that gets us to a semblance of that world within our lifetimes.

Moreover, I believe that once the majority of people sees the consequences of a world in which rational policies are implemented, they will be persuaded from those consequences to adopt the underlying ideas. Most people are not readily persuaded by abstractions. They are, however, quite eager to be persuaded by empirical evidence of astonishing success. They first see the highly concrete results of a rational philosophy (technological progress, economic prosperity, a variety of opportunities for all) and then ask what made them possible and how more of them might be brought about.

I think, in the present era, we have a nice technological momentum going that continues to build on itself. People are still innovating and elevating standards of living, despite extensive government intervention and the widespread presence of failed ideas. What is needed, first and foremost, is to prevent government from becoming sufficiently more intrusive to suppress this technological momentum. I believe that, if we can even prevent a substantial worsening of the political status quo for the next thirty years, then the war for reason and liberty will have been won. Once technologies for major life extension, genetic engineering, free decentralized education, and online employment become available (as they will if even the political status quo continues without disintegrating further), then the benefits of rational ideas will become far too lucrative for most people to deny.  It will become easy to teach rational philosophy (or rational anything) in that world, and – which is best – we will be around to live in it. The main task today, I believe, is to prevent government from becoming bigger and more intrusive and to ward off attacks on modern technology and the modern economy by statists of all stripes.

This kind of defensive action might find supporters in unusual places – and I, for one, will take my allies where I can find them, provided that they agree with me on the particular aims I happen to have. These can be different people in different situations. For instance, some religious people might be of assistance in repealing economic interventions, while certain left-wing hippies might be helpful in fighting against the drug war. Ayn Rand herself supported this approach when she advocated that ad hoc movements be formed for dealing with specific issues where all participants agreed. As Rand recognized, every person has some spark of rationality within him – as he must in order to survive. I want to find that spark in as many people as I can and maximize its effect.

The good news, meanwhile, is that people are steadily becoming more intelligent. I. Q. scores are increasing rapidly across the board, even when the I. Q. tests’ baseline has had to be adjusted multiple times to account for rising general intelligence levels. People in general tend to exhibit more moral behavior now than ever before – as the disappearance of corporal punishment for and dramatic decreases in physical violence among children have indicated. All this is happening despite massive governmental mismanagement of the education system and the prevalence of wildly destructive ideas in mainstream society. This is good news for the prospect of persuading people of rational ideas in the future.

I wish you the best in persuading as many people as possible of the truth of your ideas. I will endeavor to learn all I can from what you have posted here, and I leave open the possibility that, after further contemplation, I might end up agreeing with you on still other points. The least I can say is that, if I happen to be wrong regarding some of my ideas on persuasion, I certainly hope that you end up being right.

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com

Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

Author, The Best Self-Help is Free: http://rationalargumentator.com/selfhelpfree.html                           

Author, The Progress of Liberty Blog: http://progressofliberty.today.com/