A) INERTIA IN HISTORY
 
The fact that a large majority of the members of humanity always consists of Volitional Dummies and/or Volitional Idiots [See Chapter Three] has a consequence that plays a major role in world history. Said consequence of the cognitive sloth of the majority of humanity is that the history of humanity is characterized by a very substantial degree of inertia.
 
In other words, once a trend in history happens to become established, it is usually very difficult - and time-consuming - to change it. Humanity has a very strong tendency to just keep going on and on in the same old tracks. Check out the developments of the last 150 years. From the middle of the 18th century until, roughly, the 1870s, the West was oriented towards a relatively strong dose of freedom and individualism. The West was liberated in the realm of first the intellect during the 18th century.
 
As a result the West was also liberated in politics to a great degree during the 19th century. Slavery was abolished in most parts of the world during the 19th century. Most countries in Europe, and in North and South America, gained an element of parliamentary democracy. Almost the entire West enjoyed a major element of political freedom. As a result of all this, the standard of living skyrocketed throughout the world during the 19th century – as evidenced by the increase in average life spans - and by the resulting population explosion. Even in the (unfree) colonies the life spans of the inhabitants and the size of the total populations increased quite a lot!
 
But – the majority of mankind was too dumb/ignorant to appreciate this wonderful gift it had received from Aristotle. Immanuel Kant’s venomous philosophy began to win in the cultures of the Western world during the 19th century. And as a result, the West began to develop in the direction of less, and less freedom and greater, and greater elements of statism during the last decades of the 19th century. And once this harmful trend had been established – it just continued - and continued without the majority of the people of the world seeming to be able to learn from their gargantuan mistakes.
 
The 20th century became the century of collectivism and socialism. But despite all the countless mass murders and the two world wars that collectivism caused in the 20th century, collectivism has continued to attract followers right up until our time. Young people are still excited by socialism today. They have not learned anything at all from the bloodbaths!
 
And just look at the monetary policy in the Western countries. The leaders of the Western world have not learned the obvious lesson of historical experience - namely that monetary inflation destroys the economies of all societies which let monetary inflation loose. Right now, the world's total debt - driven by monetary policy - has reached a level of approximately 250 trillion US Dollars. The world's debt exceeds the world's total GDP more than three times over!
 
How are these debts to be paid? It looks as if the world's politicians are driving the world over the economic cliff - with their eyes wide open. The world's political leaders - and moreover their peoples/voters - all of them are blinded by Kantian philosophy. It seems as if the world is populated by utter fools. The primacy of consciousness – a.k.a. subjectivism – rules the minds of a large majority of mankind. Not least in the Western countries. This – the rise and continued survival of collectivism – is a manifestation of the enormous inertia in world history that I spoke of. Better ideas than those of collectivism are available in our culture today. Objectivist literature, especially the works of Ayn Rand, can be purchased in many bookstores - and on Amazon among other websites.
 
But the bulk of humanity has not noticed the message. They just continue to embrace the old, shopworn ideas that have hurt them so much and so many times before. They do not care to think. They do not care to seek knowledge. They do not care to develop the active intellects which could save them. They just tread on and on – in the very same rut which is leading them towards the precipice.
 
The problem is that it takes quite a lot of cognitive effort for a man to rethink his fundamental ideas. He must start a process in which he uproots his old ideas from his subconscious and laboriously replaces them with better ideas. And he doesn't "see" the new, better ideas at the beginning of this process - before he has uprooted the old ideas. So - it is easy for the man to not feel motivated to choose to start the process to begin with. The law of “the path of least resistance” often discourages the man from revising his ideas. For - it doesn't take any cognitive effort for him to simply continue to believe in what he already happens to believe. But there is in fact a factor which can motivate a man to try to find better ideas than those that he already believes in. That factor is the evidence which inexorably arises whenever he acts on ideas which are false.
 
I call this phenomenon the "Volitional Error Hypothesis".
 
B) THE VOLITIONAL ERROR HYPOTHESIS
 
The Volitional Error Hypothesis is based on the fact that - whenever a man fails to identify the facts of reality correctly he, but of course, comes into conflict with the facts of reality. The facts of reality are what they are. So - whenever a man acts in reality on the basis of a mistaken perception of the nature of reality - he is bound to suffer some kind of harm. For example, whenever a man crosses the street – if he believes that no car is coming at that moment - but he is wrong and a car is in fact coming – then, but of course, he winds up getting run over. Isn´t that so? A man always suffers some kind of harm when he acts in reality on the basis of a mistaken belief about said reality.
 
In general, the principle is that the subject suffers value frustration whenever he acts on the basis of a mistaken perception of reality - in any issue where his values are involved. By value frustration I mean that the subject necessarily fails to achieve the value out there in reality, which he is trying to acquire to benefit his own life. The subject becomes frustrated when he fails to achieve the expected value. Value frustration must, in reason, function as a "kick in the butt" that should start the thought process needed to correct the false perception of reality which gave rise to the value frustration.
 
Value frustration is always objective evidence that something is not right. When you feel frustrated, i.e. unhappy – then, figuratively speaking, said feeling of unhappiness is like a voice in your head which is screaming at you that "Something is wrong here!" It is perceptually obvious that when that voice in your consciousness screams at you that something is wrong - then you must, if you value your life, start thinking for the sake of figuring out what the heck it is that is wrong.
 
So – every failure to correctly identify the facts of reality sooner or later leads to a frustration of values. This frustration constitutes evidence staring you in the face, and screaming at you, that you must get off your butt and start thinking about what could be wrong with your existence.
 
In other words, every mistake you make in correctly identifying the facts of reality (in a matter where your values are at stake) is self-correcting! Provided that you do not commit the mortal sin of evading the realization that you must start thinking. Because – if you do not evade that realization – then you do start thinking! And since all hard thinking activity eventually builds up the intelligence which you need to correctly identify the facts of reality – you will necessarily correct your mistake if you just continue with said hard thinking activity long enough. Instead of evading the need to think and giving up. The conclusion I come to is the following.
 
This is a formal formulation of the “Volitional Error Hypothesis”:
 
“In the sufficiently long run, there is no such thing as an innocent error of knowledge on any matter which concerns your values in any way whatsoever.” Or, to put it another way: “Whenever (without exception) you make a cognitive error, it eventually becomes - in the long run at least - your own frigging fault!”
 
In principle, every human being equipped with a physically normal brain can correct any cognitive error they make – given enough time. In other words, there are no innocent errors of knowledge in matters where your values are involved - in the sufficiently long run! [Note 1]
 
So - all those cognitive slackers who just keep going in the same old cognitive rut and who continue to believe in their delusions – they are morally reprehensible. It is their own frigging fault that they make the cognitive errors they do – in philosophical subject matters as well as in other kinds of value-related subject matters.
 
My claim that any philosophical mistakes in the long run are the individual’s own frigging fault – may be a controversial claim. So - we need to examine it more closely. Let’s take a “difficult” concrete example.
 
Say a child grows up with religious fanatics as parents. The child is indoctrinated with Christian (or Muslim or Jewish, etc.) philosophy from early childhood. Can such an individual free himself from the grip of religion by his own devices?
 
There is a fundamental metaphysical principle which implies that he can. Namely, the fact that everything in the universe is interconnected. All parts of reality are ultimately related/connected to all other parts. “The universe is a plenum.” - as a wise philosopher once observed (if my memory is not failing me, it was Parmenides). “There are no seams in reality.” - as another wise philosopher observed (namely Ayn Rand´s protegé Leonard Peikoff). Since all facts of reality are interconnected – so also all knowledge of facts of reality is interconnected. So – one thing always leads to another (causally) in reality. And – one thing always leads to another (epistemologically) in knowledge.
 
So – all roads of thought, sooner or later, lead to the truth. Provided that the subject keeps on perceiving reality, keeps on thinking about what he perceives and never evades.
 
Take, for example, the unfortunate individual who in early childhood has been heavily indoctrinated with the dogmas of Christianity. He believes initially in such false ideas as that God existed before the universe existed and that God created the entire universe out of nothing by a sheer act of will. As this unfortunate individual grows up, he must in reason, come into contact with thinkers who disagree with these Christian ideas. For the sake of defending his faith, this unfortunate individual must argue with those who disagree. Then the unfortunate individual will hear about (sooner or later) such non-Christian thinkers as Aristotle and Ayn Rand. If the unfortunate individual chooses to be honest, then he must think to himself, “To be able to defend my faith, I must get to know the enemy. So - for my own sake, I must check out what Aristotle (and/or) Ayn Rand had to say about the question of the origin of the universe.” Then the unfortunate individual, if he chooses to be honest with himself, must obtain the relevant texts by Aristotle and/or Ayn Rand, and read them. And then – if he still chooses to be honest – the truth must dawn on him. With the consequence that he abandons Christianity.
 
Now, but of course, the above almost never happens in the real world. But that is not because it is metaphysically impossible. It is because most Christians, just like almost everybody else, make poor choices in regard to how they use their minds!
 
A common mistake people make (and not just Christians) is to simply waste it. They do not bother to reflect at all over whether the ideas they believe are in fact true. Or they sneer at the possibility that thinkers who disagree with Christianity might have some valuable thoughts to offer – so they refuse to read any texts by such thinkers as Aristotle and Ayn Rand. Or they may read Aristotle and/or Ayn Rand – but they choose not to make the cognitive effort required to understand what Aristotle and Ayn Rand are saying. There are numerous ways in which a man who is philosophically “mal-programmed” may fail to correct the “mal-programming”. But in all cases the blame for this is on him (in the sufficiently long run). Many, many men never arrive at the truth - because they do not bother to even try with sufficient tenacity to find out the truth!
 
But – can people fail to discover the truth “merely” because it is intellectually difficult – and because they lack the necessary intelligence to grasp the truth? No, not in the sufficiently long enough run! Since intelligence is volitional, each, and every, man who is equipped with a physically normal brain can acquire the necessary intelligence himself – if only he makes the right choice(s). That is, if only he does not choose to evade the self-evident awareness that he needs to acquire knowledge about reality if he wants to live in reality – and if he therefore does not evade the knowledge that he therefore just has to get off his butt and use his grey cells to “whatever extent it takes”.
 
And this principle – the “Volitional Error Principle” – would apply even if philosophically mal-programmed individuals did not have access to texts by such geniuses as Aristotle and Ayn Rand. Because mal-programmed individuals could discover the truth on their own, if only they chose to put in enough effort and thereby developed a sufficiently high level of intelligence. I myself am not and never was a genius – but I managed to figure out the truth about the Christian creation myth on my own when I was 13 years old – and therefore I became an atheist by conviction at the tender age of thirteen. If I could do it when I was a teenager – then anyone who is equipped with a normal brain should be able to do it - at least in adulthood. If they did not happen to be as intelligent as I was – then they should at least be able to do it at a more mature age than the age of 13 that I managed to do it at!
 
The volitional error principle is supported by basic metaphysical principles. Whenever a man fails to identify the facts of reality correctly, contradictions inevitably arise between the true facts of reality and the man´s erroneous perceptions of reality. These contradictions can in principle always be identified if only the subject continues to think and ponder long enough. If the subject ponders long enough, he develops the necessary intelligence to perceive the contradictions and then figure out the truth. So - cognitive errors cancel themselves out - if only the subject chooses to think and keeps on thinking long enough.
 
C) IS THERE HOPE?
 
My “Volitional Error Hypothesis” thus suggests that there is in fact hope that humanity will eventually arrive at the truth.
 
But – my hypothesis about volitional intelligence also says that the choice to prefer the state of “ease” is closer at hand than the choice to prefer the state of “dis-ease”. (See Chapter Two of this book) And, as Ayn Rand firmly argued, it is an empirical fact that an overwhelming majority of men in all societies and in all periods in history have chosen to become second-handers. That is, the vast majority of the members of humanity, in all eras and in all societies, have developed a habit of taking authority figures on blind faith.
 
So – is there hope or not?
 
The answer to that question is yes. n principle, at least.
 
To be sure, it is certainly true that the ancient Romans found reason, already 2,000 years ago, to invent the pithy aphorism “Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain!”
 
But – against that, there is a metaphysical principle, identified by Ayn Rand, which states that the man who ignores reality - i.e. who chooses not to think or who chooses to actively evade - is metaphysically impotent. Ayn Rand called this principle the “metaphysical impotence of evil”.
 
The meaning of this principle is that any form of ignoring the facts of reality lays the foundation for its own eventual failure. The man who fails to think loses out on the knowledge about the nature of reality which he needs to deal with said reality. So - he will tend to fail in whatever he undertakes. (Such a man survives only to the extent that he can benefit from the better men around him who do actually choose to think.)
 
Then there is another principle. The vast majority of men actually (to some extent at least), want to live rather than to die. This relationship means that a rational philosophy, which makes it easier for people to live, tends to have a greater inherent attraction to the members of humanity who count (because they are not metaphysically impotent), than an irrational philosophy, which only makes it easier for men to die rather than to live.
 
So – the good does have an inherent advantage over evil. Namely: The good has reality on its side. When the philosophy that correctly identifies the facts of reality is pitted against the other philosophies, victory for the rational philosophy is actually possible. Even if only a few individuals are intelligent enough to embrace it initially.
 
The minority that chooses to develop an active intellect is, in the long run, more powerful than the vast majority of cognitive slackers. If “only” said “Moral Minority” (to paraphrase Ronald Reagan) perseveres. The battle for the souls of humanity will be a long one.
 
The pattern is that a genius, a Discoverer like Ayn Rand, sets in motion developments for the better. By doing the hard work of correctly identifying the facts of reality within philosophy for the very first time. Then a small number of Explorers choose to join her philosophy – because they value their lives and are intelligent enough to realize the value of her philosophy for said lives. These Explorers then persuade a still larger number of First-Handed Cognitive Slackers to also join the new, rational philosophy. These prove able to grasp the new philosophy at least on a “common sense level” and they like this new philosophy because it is pro-life. Eventually there are enough followers of the new philosophy to induce the large mass of Volitional Dummies into following suit. Since Volitional Dummies are cognitively passive, they follow the cultural current instead of leading it. And – because free will is free will and because they have not yet committed themselves to any philosophy, Volitional Dummies can choose to act out of character – and can therefore choose to think and grasp the better ideas. They just need the “push” that they get from the realization that there are numerous other people who think along the lines of the new philosophy - together with the “push” that consists of the collision of their irrational old ideas with reality.
 
So - the Volitional Dummies are much more numerous than the first-handers. But - precisely because they are cognitively less active than the first-handers, the Volitional Dummies are also less potent and less able to influence history than the first-handers. Those who have not developed at least a somewhat active intellect cannot determine the intellectual trends in a society. They do not participate in the public debate except as a passive choir.
 
Remember - the Volitional Dummies constitute the ballast of history.
 
Therein lies the hope of humanity. The “problem” is just that confounded element of inertia in history - which is due to the very fact that the second-handers of mankind are so many, many more than the first-handers. The big risk is that the inertia caused by the numerical dominance of second-handers among mankind will induce the minority of first-handers to give up too soon.
 
So - the worse a man is (worse in moral terms) - the more metaphysically impotent he is – (i.e. the less he can accomplish). Thank goodness for that tender mercy!
 
Note 1 Sometimes, if an error is especially difficult to detect, the “sufficiently long run” can amount to more than a man´s remaining lifespan. So, a man might not succeed at correcting an error he makes, notwithstanding heroic effort, because he “kicks the bucket” before he manages to discover the truth.