The comments in this article are meant for those who do discriminate and accept the responsibility of independent thought—the only kind worth having and considered of value to objectivists. The Muslim Students Association article’s use of ad hominem attacks, straw men—where an idea that he has not advocated is attributed to someone and then discredited as a means to discredit the person and dismiss any further ideas from that person, obfuscating verbiage—where terms which have no meaning are used to give the impression of "sophistication" (e.g. "‘objective’ in its dynamic operative mode"), of baseless assertions: all suggest that independent thought is exactly what the MSA does not appeal to. I am honestly surprised to encounter such intellectual dishonesty and smear tactics, more universally attributed to crooked politicians, being employed here at RPI.
The MSA article presumes to speak for "the people who attended Bernstein’s lecture," but it only speaks for those in agreement with the MSA. It proposes to present views that people have not been exposed to, and yet that is exactly what they have been exposed to. Those views are those of the intellectual mainstream and are exactly what students have been exposed to throughout their schooling. If anything, it is the objectivist viewpoint that is the dissenting one. Objectivism is atheistic and non-mystical, rational and selfish, rejects the false dichotomies between reason and emotion, between theory and practice, between mind and body. Objectivism holds that the only proper purpose of a government is to protect the rights of its citizens against those who would abrogate them and retaliate against whomsoever does.
Is there not a "clash of cultures," of fundamental ideas, values, and worldviews in effect? Do we not support individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—whereas they suppress it? Are we not secularized with a separation of church and state to prevent exactly the existence of the kind of men we face—whereas the church or religion is their state? Do we not support the sovereignty of the individual while they subjugate the individual wholly to the religion, the dogma? If this is not a clash of culture, I cannot imagine what is.
By grouping in those who support the use of force in self-defense and retaliation against our murderers with the very murderers themselves, the MSA removes the distinction between the criminal and the defender. There is a difference between targeting innocent civilians as a matter of principle and agenda and responding to such attacks by advocating the destruction of the aggressors. There is a difference between murder used as a means to address a grievance and self-defense against such murder. Any deaths of civilians in aggressing nations are their moral responsibility, not ours. They have chosen death and condemned themselves and any who stand with them, not us. There is no pride or honor in violence. There is no value to be gained by it. But when our lives are at stake, we must act or simply give up and hand ourselves over. We want the freedom to live as we see fit without threat to others or by them. They want the power to force others to live as they see fit. There is a difference.
On a final note, regarding Alan Catelli’s "My View" article, I would like to make only a few points. His assertion that eliminating other people is in anyone’s self-interest and follows from objectivism is fantastic in its illogic while his assertion that objectivism rejects emotion is plain falsity. It is not in my self-interest to not have others to trade with and learn from and work with to build a better world. I’m a little baffled at some of Mr. Catelli’s false ideas about objectivism. The works of Ayn Rand, the novelist-philosopher who founded objectivism, are quite readily available at bookstores and libraries.
Aneel Wazir Lakhani
President, RPI Objectivist Club
