Henrik Unné

An assault on Christianity

22 posts in this topic

The Swedish debate site Newsmill recently had a debate about the Jesus myth (in connection with the Easter holidays). I decided to write a contribution of my own to the debate, which explained what I thought about the whole issue of Jesus. The debate piece which I wound up writing, turned out to be an all-out assault on the Jesus myth, and by extension, on Christianity. I did not pull any punches. I think that you will agree that my debate piece below follows the maxim of "take no prisoners".

I remember that Dr. Peikoff, in the quesion and answer session following one of his many lectures (I do not recall which one) was asked what he thought of Jesus, and, specifically, if he thought that Jesus was an evil man. Dr. Peikoff replied that he did not think that Jesus was an evil man, but that he on the contrary was a driven moralist, albeit advocating a profoundly mistaken morality. I have to disagree with Dr. Peikoff.

As I explain in my debate piece below, I think that there are only two logical possibilities, if we choose to disbelieve the idea that Jesus really *was* the "son of God". Those two logical possibilities are that Jesus either was a madman, who seriously believed himself to be the son of the omniscient, omnipotent creator of th whole universe. In which case Jesus must have been the greatest megalomaniac in all of human history. Or else, Jesus was a con man, who against his conscious knowledge claimed to be the "son of God", in order to get people as possible to follow him, so that he could cause them as much suffering as possible. In that case, Jesus must have been one of the most evil men in history, right up there with Kant and Hitler.

Newsmill declined to publish my debate piece. I think that I can guess why. I had to content myself with publishing it on my own blog (where I have also recently published an essay which Betsy Speicher, on *valid* grounds, so I am not complaining (it did not have anything to do with philosophy or with Objectivism), declined to post here). The web adress of my blog is http://henrik-unne.blogspot.com .

Here is my debate piece on Jesus:

WAS JESUS AN EVIL MAN?

Who was Jesus? The Christians have throughout the ages always alleged that he was the most all-good, morally exalted man who ever lived. Although they also say that he was not just a man, but the “son of God”. Which, I at least, take as meaning that he had a human body, but with a soul that was derived from God. But the question that I want to raise is – “Was not Jesus an *evil* man? Was not Jesus actually one of the worst moral monsters that has ever walked the face of the Earth?” Thankfully, we have so much freedom of religion in today´s Sweden, that I do not risk being burned at the stake for raising this, in the eyes of the Christians, heretical question. I must, however, hope that there are not any Christian Swedes who have the same attitude towards violence that some of the Islamists have. Otherwise my goose would be cooked.

The question of whether Jesus was an evil man can be divided into two sub-questions. Was Jesus an (ordinary) man at all – or was he really the “son of God”? And, *if* Jesus was just an ordinary man, who was falsely taken to be the son of God, was Jesus really an *evil* ordinary man?

OK, the first question – was Jesus just an ordinary man, or was he really the son of God? Well, what evidence do we have for the idea that Jesus was the son of God? The Bible, to be sure, claims that Jesus was the son of God. But what justification does the Bible provide for this daring assertion? Well, the Bible *claims* that a long time ago there were witnesses who *claimed* that they had seen Jesus rise from the dead. And the Bible *claims* that a long time ago there were witnesses who *claimed* that they had seen Jesus turn water into wine. Likewise the Bible *claims* that a long time ago there were witnesses who *claimed* that they had seen Jesus carry out such miracles as walking on water, turning stones into loaves of bread, making a blind man see, curing sick people and so forth. But all of this is, of course, mere hearsay.

And what evidence is there which indicates that this hearsay is, in fact, just nonsense? Well, “merely” everything which we know about the nature of reality. Everything which we know about the nature of reality tells us that death is irrevocable, and that whenever a man dies, he stays dead. And everything which we know about the nature of reality tells us that a substance, such as water, cannot be turned into another substance, such as wine, merely because someone wishes it. And everything which we know about the nature of reality tells us that bodies with such a high specific gravity as a man, cannot be supported by the surface of a body of water. And so forth. So, in order to believe that Jesus carried out all those putative miracles, which supposedly proved that he in some way was divine, we must put greater store in hearsay, than in everything which we know about the nature of reality.

Well, there is less that we know about the nature of reality, which contradicts the stories about flying saucers, than which contradicts the story that Jesus was God´s son! And the reports about flying saucers are at least hearsay which is not 2.000 years old! So, according to my humble opinion, we have still less reason to believe in the idea that Jesus was son of God, than we have to believe that the Earth every is periodically visited by aliens in flying saucers.

OK, to start with, what was Jesus, if he seriously believed himself to be the son of God? Well, in that case, he must have suffered from one of the most colossal cases of megalomania in human history! In that case, we must, in reason, say that Jesus was insane. No man, who is in contact with reality, can, in reason, seriously believe that he himself is the son of God. Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Djinghis Khan and so forth, they pale in comparison to a man who suffered from such a gigantic megalomania that he in full seriousness believed himself to be the son of God. After all, this God was supposed to be the omniscient, omnipotent being which had created the entire universe. So if Jesus was an honest man, when he said himself to be the son of God, then he must have been literally insane! He must have been a madman!

OK, but what if Jesus was *not* an honest man? Maybe Jesus was rational enough to be aware that he was just an ordinary man? Why, then, did he claim to be the son of God? Well, he must have been one hell of a fraud! He must have wanted everyone to trust him, and to believe everything that he said. And what kind of things was it that Jesus said? Well, the core of Jesus´ teaching was that self-sacrifice and self- denial are the essence of morality. Jesus preached, as we all know, that men should give away all their worldly possessions, and that they should live just above the starvation level. Jesus said that poverty is good. Now what motives could a sane man possibly have to deliberately commit such a gigantic fraud, the purpose of which was to make men believe that it is desirable to live in poverty and misery? The answer is obvious! That guy wanted all men who lived after him to suffer and to be unhappy! If Jesus was *not* insane, then he was a con man, who deceived and lied, for the sole purpose of bringing about as much suffering as he possibly could to the rest of mankind! In that case, Jesus must have been even more evil than those Moslem suicide bombers, who willingly blow themselves up, for the purpose of killing and maiming as many innocent fellow men as possible.

So, as you can see, there are just two logical possibilities. Either Jesus was a madman, who suffered from what was probably the worst case of megalomania in human history. Or else Jesus was one of the most evil moral monsters which have ever existed. Those two alternatives are the only two possible ones, if we are not prepared to believe, merely on the grounds of sheer hearsay, the idea which contradicts everything we know about the nature of reality, namely that Jesus really *was* the son of God.

So what is my conclusion? Well, I can for my part, not believe that Jesus really was the son of God, merely because a book *claims* that some guys who lived more than 2.000 years ago, in their turn *claimed* that they had seen certain things happen, which contradicted everything which I myself know about the nature of reality. I just am not so gullible that I put such great store in hearsay.

But neither can I very well believe that Jesus was so incredibly evil that he was willing to die a horrible death on the cross, merely in order to bring about as much suffering as possible for the rest of humanity. Crucifixions were frequently occurring events during the time of Jesus, so Jesus must, in reason, have witnessed some himself, and must have known what an excruciatingly painful torture it was to be crucified. And all normal people feel an extremely strong aversion to being subjected to savage torture. So I cannot conceive of the possibility that Jesus, if he was sane at all, deliberately drew upon himself the death on the cross, merely in order to cause suffering to other men. A suffering which he knew, to boot, that he would never have the “pleasure” of witnessing himself, since he would be dead then.

My conclusion is therefore that Jesus must, in reason, have been a psychotic, who suffered from the megalomaniacal delusion that he was the son of God. And that much of the rest of humanity was so incredibly gullible that they believed him – and created an entire world-changing religion on the basis of that nutball´s psychotic ravings! Well, some people, many of the actually, will believe just about anything.

As a famous circus director once said – “There´s a sucker born every minute!” Well, it certainly has happened in history that some of the most unlikely superstitions which you can conceive of, have won hundreds of millions of blind believers! Who, not so infrequently, have been willing to die for their absurd superstitions!

This is what I - that am a devote atheist – think about Jesus and Christianity. As you can understand, I do not have much respect for the intelligence of the devoted Christians. If Jesus even existed, which is uncertain, then in that case the Christians are *worshipping* a lunatic who lived and died ignominiously 2.000 years ago!

Henrik Unné

Skarpnäck, 2010-04-13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Dr. Peikoff replied that he did not think that Jesus was an evil man, but that he on the contrary was a driven moralist, albeit advocating a profoundly mistaken morality. I have to disagree with Dr. Peikoff.

... I think that there are only two logical possibilities, if we choose to disbelieve the idea that Jesus really *was* the "son of God". Those two logical possibilities are that Jesus either was a madman, who seriously believed himself to be the son of the omniscient, omnipotent creator of th whole universe. In which case Jesus must have been the greatest megalomaniac in all of human history. Or else, Jesus was a con man, who against his conscious knowledge claimed to be the "son of God", in order to get people as possible to follow him, so that he could cause them as much suffering as possible. In that case, Jesus must have been one of the most evil men in history, right up there with Kant and Hitler...

I don't know what Leonard Peikoff said about that, but your "only two logical possibilities" to the contrary are not a valid deduction. Is there any evidence that Jesus actually believed or said he was the "son of God" in the mystical sense later adopted by theologians? Doesn't the Jewish religion deny that? It also doesn't follow from your premises that Jesus "must have been the greatest megalomaniac in all of human history" or that he was lying in "in order to get [as many people] people as possible to follow him, so that he could cause them as much suffering as possible", or that he "must have been one of the most evil men in history, right up there with Kant and Hitler". These are gratuitous accusations. I'm sure you believe you are being "logical", but your essay is not logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Dr. Peikoff replied that he did not think that Jesus was an evil man, but that he on the contrary was a driven moralist, albeit advocating a profoundly mistaken morality. I have to disagree with Dr. Peikoff.

... I think that there are only two logical possibilities, if we choose to disbelieve the idea that Jesus really *was* the "son of God". Those two logical possibilities are that Jesus either was a madman, who seriously believed himself to be the son of the omniscient, omnipotent creator of th whole universe. In which case Jesus must have been the greatest megalomaniac in all of human history. Or else, Jesus was a con man, who against his conscious knowledge claimed to be the "son of God", in order to get people as possible to follow him, so that he could cause them as much suffering as possible. In that case, Jesus must have been one of the most evil men in history, right up there with Kant and Hitler...

I don't know what Leonard Peikoff said about that, but your "only two logical possibilities" to the contrary are not a valid deduction. Is there any evidence that Jesus actually believed or said he was the "son of God" in the mystical sense later adopted by theologians? Doesn't the Jewish religion deny that? It also doesn't follow from your premises that Jesus "must have been the greatest megalomaniac in all of human history" or that he was lying in "in order to get [as many people] people as possible to follow him, so that he could cause them as much suffering as possible", or that he "must have been one of the most evil men in history, right up there with Kant and Hitler". These are gratuitous accusations. I'm sure you believe you are being "logical", but your essay is not logical.

I am not an expert on Christianity, so I do not know for certain if the Bible says that Jesus himself, while he was alive and preaching, *said* explicitly that he was the son of God. But he did spend many years wandering around preaching and, according to the Bible, working miracles. Of course the alleged miracles are probably just myths which were invented by others, after Jesus was dead, but Jesus did evidently take himself very seriously (if he actually existed, which we do not know). And if Jesus took himself seriously, and believed that he had mystical insights about religious matters, that means that he did have a blown-up self-image. But I may have been guilty of hyperbole, when I said that if Jesus was not a con man, then he was a *colossal* megalomaniac. If Jesus did in fact believe that he was the "son of God", who was supposed to be the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the entire universe, then he was *obviously* a colossal megalomaniac and, in my view, probably psychotic (in which case of course it was a tragedy that he died a horrible death, because in that case he "couldn´t help it2).

As to the claim that Jesus was one of the "most evil men in all of history" if he was not crazy, well, if he *knew what he was doing* then he was. But he might have been advocating self-sacrifice and self-abnegation and poverty as an end in itself without realizing fully what he was doing. In that case he was not evil, just stoopid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of speculative bashing directed at a person you know almost nothing about, all in the name of logic and 'take no prisoners', isn't doing anyone any good, least of all yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This kind of speculative bashing directed at a person you know almost nothing about, all in the name of logic and 'take no prisoners', isn't doing anyone any good, least of all yourself.

I suppose so. Arguing for the right position with invalid arguments does harm, not good. But it felt good to bash Christianity. But I won´t do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This kind of speculative bashing directed at a person you know almost nothing about, all in the name of logic and 'take no prisoners', isn't doing anyone any good, least of all yourself.

I suppose so. Arguing for the right position with invalid arguments does harm, not good. But it felt good to bash Christianity. But I won´t do it again.

The kind of conclusions you drew weren't even the right position. In any event, as you know, 'feeling good' is an invalid, hedonistic standard. But as a consequence, you would feel much better from a positive, productive effort, even if it were a well-reasoned criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This kind of speculative bashing directed at a person you know almost nothing about, all in the name of logic and 'take no prisoners', isn't doing anyone any good, least of all yourself.

I suppose so. Arguing for the right position with invalid arguments does harm, not good. But it felt good to bash Christianity. But I won´t do it again.

The kind of conclusions you drew weren't even the right position. In any event, as you know, 'feeling good' is an invalid, hedonistic standard. But as a consequence, you would feel much better from a positive, productive effort, even if it were a well-reasoned criticism.

Yes, I know that "feeling good" is an invalid standard. That is why I will try not to do it again. But bashing Christianity, and other similarly irrational beliefs, is such a temptation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know that "feeling good" is an invalid standard. That is why I will try not to do it again. But bashing Christianity, and other similarly irrational beliefs, is such a temptation!

I don't share your enthusiasm for bashing things and am not "tempted" by it. I enjoy achieving positive values. Did Dagny find glee in, or spend her time, bashing Jim Taggert? If you have to do it, hold your nose in contempt, get it over with, and get back to your own life. There is no glee in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know that "feeling good" is an invalid standard. That is why I will try not to do it again. But bashing Christianity, and other similarly irrational beliefs, is such a temptation!

I don't share your enthusiasm for bashing things and am not "tempted" by it. I enjoy achieving positive values. Did Dagny find glee in, or spend her time, bashing Jim Taggert? If you have to do it, hold your nose in contempt, get it over with, and get back to your own life. There is no glee in it.

You have a point. The Christian morality of sacrifice stinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know that "feeling good" is an invalid standard. That is why I will try not to do it again. But bashing Christianity, and other similarly irrational beliefs, is such a temptation!

I don't share your enthusiasm for bashing things and am not "tempted" by it. I enjoy achieving positive values. Did Dagny find glee in, or spend her time, bashing Jim Taggert? If you have to do it, hold your nose in contempt, get it over with, and get back to your own life. There is no glee in it.

Well, I guess that I am not like Dagny Taggart in one respect. I do feel a kind of satisfaction whenever I fight evil. Maybe I don´t have as high a self-esteem as Dagny Taggart, and maybe therefore I do not see evil as so totally beneath contempt. But I do have a strong self-esteem. So it is more likely that the reason I do not just "hold my nose" when fighting evil, is that I do not have a 100% pure benevolent universe premise.

But - I think that the happiness that I felt after writing that assault on Christianity came from the satisfaction of *doing something* to fight evil, and not from *harming* evil per se. I always feel much better after I have done something to promote my values, even if it is in the way of fighting evil. Because I do promote my values, and my happiness, when I fight the things that will, if unchecked, destroy my happiness.

Also, I *do* pursue positive values in my own life. But I have time to fight evil also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems as if you are more concerned with the problems of others, than they are concerned with their own problems. As long as they don't affect you, why bother? Once I had a friend who was always in financial trouble. I would keep offering him advice. One day he said "you worry more about my problems than I do." That was a wake up call for me, and I told him I would never do that again. To this day, before I offer advice or assistance, I ask myself if I am worrying more than person concerned has worried. It is a wonderful gauge to judge my actions by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know that "feeling good" is an invalid standard. That is why I will try not to do it again. But bashing Christianity, and other similarly irrational beliefs, is such a temptation!

I don't share your enthusiasm for bashing things and am not "tempted" by it. I enjoy achieving positive values. Did Dagny find glee in, or spend her time, bashing Jim Taggert? If you have to do it, hold your nose in contempt, get it over with, and get back to your own life. There is no glee in it.

Well, I guess that I am not like Dagny Taggart in one respect. I do feel a kind of satisfaction whenever I fight evil. Maybe I don´t have as high a self-esteem as Dagny Taggart, and maybe therefore I do not see evil as so totally beneath contempt.

You should be asking yourself why she and the other heroes in the novel didn't do what you do and its relation to their superior sense of self esteem and happiness as first-handers.

But - I think that the happiness that I felt after writing that assault on Christianity came from the satisfaction of *doing something* to fight evil, and not from *harming* evil per se. I always feel much better after I have done something to promote my values, even if it is in the way of fighting evil. Because I do promote my values, and my happiness, when I fight the things that will, if unchecked, destroy my happiness.

You are not promoting your own values when you rant in the name of "logic" that Jesus "must have been the greatest megalomaniac in all of human history" or that he was lying in "in order to get [as many people] people as possible to follow him, so that he could cause them as much suffering as possible", or that he "must have been one of the most evil men in history, right up there with Kant and Hitler". You are only making yourself look foolish through baseless, frantic 'name calling' while discrediting and undermining yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems as if you are more concerned with the problems of others, than they are concerned with their own problems. As long as they don't affect you, why bother? Once I had a friend who was always in financial trouble. I would keep offering him advice. One day he said "you worry more about my problems than I do." That was a wake up call for me, and I told him I would never do that again. To this day, before I offer advice or assistance, I ask myself if I am worrying more than person concerned has worried. It is a wonderful gauge to judge my actions by.

That's an interesting anecdote; thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not promoting your own values when you rant in the name of "logic" that Jesus "must have been the greatest megalomaniac in all of human history" or that he was lying in "in order to get [as many people] people as possible to follow him, so that he could cause them as much suffering as possible", or that he "must have been one of the most evil men in history, right up there with Kant and Hitler". You are only making yourself look foolish through baseless, frantic 'name calling' while discrediting and undermining yourself.

If I had asserted *arbitrarily* such things as that "Jesus must have been one of the most evil men in history [if he was not insane, and therefore knew what destruction he was perpetrating]", then people would be justified in disregarding me and thinking me foolish. But I did, in case you didn´t notice, provide logical arguments for my assertions. If people who read my article decide that I am foolish, then I think that they are wrong. And since I am not a second hander, I do not care much if people regard me as foolish on invalid grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should be asking yourself why she and the other heroes in the novel didn't do what you do and its relation to their superior sense of self esteem and happiness as first-handers.

I think that I understand why people like Dagny Taggart had a superior self esteem and happiness.

1) They made less grave errors in their early lives, than I made early in my life.

2) They did not go through the traumatic experiences that I went through (experiencing a psychosis, and having to deal with *really* rotten parents when being just a child, and therefore being relatively defenseless).

As for the issue of first handedness, I do think that I am equally first handed as the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, although I wasn´t so when I was a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not promoting your own values when you rant in the name of "logic" that Jesus "must have been the greatest megalomaniac in all of human history" or that he was lying in "in order to get [as many people] people as possible to follow him, so that he could cause them as much suffering as possible", or that he "must have been one of the most evil men in history, right up there with Kant and Hitler". You are only making yourself look foolish through baseless, frantic 'name calling' while discrediting and undermining yourself.

If I had asserted *arbitrarily* such things as that "Jesus must have been one of the most evil men in history [if he was not insane, and therefore knew what destruction he was perpetrating]", then people would be justified in disregarding me and thinking me foolish. But I did, in case you didn´t notice, provide logical arguments for my assertions. If people who read my article decide that I am foolish, then I think that they are wrong. And since I am not a second hander, I do not care much if people regard me as foolish on invalid grounds.

But you did assert it arbitrarily. There was no logical analysis. It was all non sequiturs. You acknowledged previously that it was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should be asking yourself why she and the other heroes in the novel didn't do what you do and its relation to their superior sense of self esteem and happiness as first-handers.

I think that I understand why people like Dagny Taggart had a superior self esteem and happiness.

1) They made less grave errors in their early lives, than I made early in my life.

2) They did not go through the traumatic experiences that I went through (experiencing a psychosis, and having to deal with *really* rotten parents when being just a child, and therefore being relatively defenseless).

As for the issue of first handedness, I do think that I am equally first handed as the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, although I wasn´t so when I was a child.

Dagny Taggert was in her 30s in the novel. You are in your 50s and now know better, and have known better for many years, regardless of your childhood. You have had plenty of time to introspect and control your own adult life in spite of the early severe obstacles you had to overcome. You can't blame those problems forever. It's what you know and how you act now that matters. Some of the best individuals in history have come from very hard early backgrounds. Their fate was not determined, despite their difficulties, and neither is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To this day, before I offer advice or assistance, I ask myself if I am worrying more than person concerned has worried. It is a wonderful gauge to judge my actions by.

And it saves you a lot of time and effort, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dagny Taggert was in her 30s in the novel. You are in your 50s and now know better, and have known better for many years, regardless of your childhood. You have had plenty of time to introspect and control your own adult life in spite of the early severe obstacles you had to overcome. You can't blame those problems forever. It's what you know and how you act now that matters. Some of the best individuals in history have come from very hard early backgrounds. Their fate was not determined, despite their difficulties, and neither is yours.

Frankly, I do not think that you know enough about me, and my personal life, to be able to judge whether I have fixed up my life or not.

My own assessment is that, going by the standard of my personal happiness, I have. I am today happier than I ever have been since the age of 9, which is when my life first began going downhill. And I am immensely proud and satisfied by the fact that I recovered from a psychosis, discovered Objectivism by my own efforts (I did not just stumble on Objectivism, like most people here, I was looking for it), and then proceeded to be one of the 3 individuals who were the pioneers who injected Objectivism into the Swedish culture, and thereby possibly changed Swedish history for the better. I do not think that I have wasted my life by devoting it to idealism. The pride and satisfaction which I feel today, make me feel that it was worth it.

Nevertheless, that being said, I still feel anger when I see how much of their potential most people waste, by not bothering to think. Why do I care about other people´s choice not to think? Well, I do not care *very* much. My motive for writing the many posts on this subject here on the Forum has been primarily intellectual. I am fascinated by the subject of psychology.

And also, there is a personal motive. You remember that Ayn Rand once remarked that she could not be as indifferent about philosophy as most of the Conservatives were, because she *saw so clearly the consequences of bad philosophy*, which the conservatives didn´t? Well, I cannot be indifferent about the massive default on thinking which so many men commit, because I see so clearly the consequences of that default. The reason that I see the consequences of the default so clearly which, apparently, many others here do not, is that my parents did not *mean* to hurt me. But they hurt me grievously nonetheless, as a consequence of a committing a *massive* default on the responsibility of thinking. They taught me all the wrong ideas, because they *never* bothered to examine those ideas critically. And I went literally insane as a result. So I have learned on my own skin that it does not take malice to almost destroy an innocent person´s life, A massive default on thinking is enough.

Nowadays, I sometimes think to myself that perhaps there is some young person out there, who is going through the same kind of hell, for the same kind of reasons, that I did, when I was a kid. And that thought does "bother" me, even though I know that random strangers´ lives are not my responsibility. So I feel strongly, for personal reasons, about the fact that so many people default massively on the responsibility of thinking. I cannot help it, so to speak. I am a mensch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dagny Taggert was in her 30s in the novel. You are in your 50s and now know better, and have known better for many years, regardless of your childhood. You have had plenty of time to introspect and control your own adult life in spite of the early severe obstacles you had to overcome. You can't blame those problems forever. It's what you know and how you act now that matters. Some of the best individuals in history have come from very hard early backgrounds. Their fate was not determined, despite their difficulties, and neither is yours.

Frankly, I do not think that you know enough about me, and my personal life, to be able to judge whether I have fixed up my life or not. My own assessment is that, going by the standard of my personal happiness, I have. I am today happier than I ever have been since the age of 9, which is when my life first began going downhill. And I am immensely proud and satisfied by the fact that I recovered from a psychosis, discovered Objectivism by my own efforts (I did not just stumble on Objectivism, like most people here, I was looking for it), and then proceeded to be one of the 3 individuals who were the pioneers who injected Objectivism into the Swedish culture, and thereby possibly changed Swedish history for the better. I do not think that I have wasted my life by devoting it to idealism. The pride and satisfaction which I feel today, make me feel that it was worth it.

Nevertheless, that being said, I still feel anger when I see how much of their potential most people waste, by not bothering to think. Why do I care about other people´s choice not to think? Well, I do not care *very* much. My motive for writing the many posts on this subject here on the Forum has been primarily intellectual. I am fascinated by the subject of psychology.

And also, there is a personal motive. You remember that Ayn Rand once remarked that she could not be as indifferent about philosophy as most of the Conservatives were, because she *saw so clearly the consequences of bad philosophy*, which the conservatives didn´t? Well, I cannot be indifferent about the massive default on thinking which so many men commit, because I see so clearly the consequences of that default. The reason that I see the consequences of the default so clearly which, apparently, many others here do not, is that my parents did not *mean* to hurt me. But they hurt me grievously nonetheless, as a consequence of a committing a *massive* default on the responsibility of thinking. They taught me all the wrong ideas, because they *never* bothered to examine those ideas critically. And I went literally insane as a result. So I have learned on my own skin that it does not take malice to almost destroy an innocent person´s life, A massive default on thinking is enough.

Nowadays, I sometimes think to myself that perhaps there is some young person out there, who is going through the same kind of hell, for the same kind of reasons, that I did, when I was a kid. And that thought does "bother" me, even though I know that random strangers´ lives are not my responsibility. So I feel strongly, for personal reasons, about the fact that so many people default massively on the responsibility of thinking. I cannot help it, so to speak. I am a mensch.

A mensch is a good person of character, not someone who "can't help" being obsessed with others.

We can all see what you describe and reveal of yourself in your posts. You acknowledge and describe personal problems, sometimes asking for advice, then contradict yourself, denying that anything is wrong, and plunge back into obsessively denouncing others, which you try to explain away as being "intellectual". That pattern is itself a big problem. From all the accounts in your posts, you certainly have not "injected Objectivism into the Swedish culture" or anything else.

What is your personal success -- what is your career, what personal values do you pursue and achieve, aside from staying alive as a functioning adult? The latter was an achievement in itself given where you started, but what are you now as an adult? Your whole identity seems to be wrapped up in what you think is "Objectivism" and denouncing others as a substitute for a personal life of your own as your primary value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your personal success -- what is your career, what personal values do you pursue and achieve, aside from staying alive as a functioning adult? The latter was an achievement in itself given where you started, but what are you now as an adult? Your whole identity seems to be wrapped up in what you think is "Objectivism" and denouncing others as a substitute for a personal life of your own as your primary value.

What is my personal success? Well, I recovered from a psychosis, mostly by my own efforts, although with the valuable help of medications. I have rebuilt my mind after my psychosis. I have disvovered Objectivism through my own efforts (I did not just stumble on Objectivism, as most other Objectivists have done, I was looking for it, specifically I was looking for the intellectual foundation of freedom, and when I found Objectivism I realized that - "this is what I have been looking for"). I *have* won at the very least many dozens of Swedes for Objectivism. I have become a much better, more skilled factory worker than I was when I started out working in a factory. I have succeeded at obtaining a happy marriage, with a woman whom I love, and who shows a great many signs of loving me. And, the most important thing, I am happier now than I have ever been since the age of 9, when my life first began going downhill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your personal success -- what is your career, what personal values do you pursue and achieve, aside from staying alive as a functioning adult? The latter was an achievement in itself given where you started, but what are you now as an adult? Your whole identity seems to be wrapped up in what you think is "Objectivism" and denouncing others as a substitute for a personal life of your own as your primary value.

What is my personal success? Well, I recovered from a psychosis, mostly by my own efforts, although with the valuable help of medications. I have rebuilt my mind after my psychosis. I have disvovered Objectivism through my own efforts (I did not just stumble on Objectivism, as most other Objectivists have done, I was looking for it, specifically I was looking for the intellectual foundation of freedom, and when I found Objectivism I realized that - "this is what I have been looking for").

The question was about what you have actually done with your life since you got back into a normal adult life.

I *have* won at the very least many dozens of Swedes for Objectivism. I have become a much better, more skilled factory worker than I was when I started out working in a factory.

And why nothing more, for yourself, with your ambition and intellect?

I have succeeded at obtaining a happy marriage, with a woman whom I love, and who shows a great many signs of loving me. And, the most important thing, I am happier now than I have ever been since the age of 9, when my life first began going downhill.

This contradicts other accounts you have given. It is good that you are relatively happier now, but to compare it with what happened to you back around the period after you were 9 isn't saying much. So you are married and a better factory worker. You can do better than that instead of spending your time obsessing over other people's alleged moral depravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.