ObjectivismOnline.net Logo  
HomeForumAbout UsWeb LinksWikiPhoto GalleryFliersMember BlogsArt GalleryCalendarEssays

The Objectivism Online Meta-Blog

A pro-reason, pro-capitalism Objectivist Meta-Blog

Objectivism Meta-Blog
Archives :: Submit a post :: Atom Feed :: RDF Feed :: Admin Login

« The Missing Variable: Philosophy | Main | Airlines Should Be Free to Merge »

December 18, 2006

Dear Virginia in the 19th Century

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In 1897, Virginia O'Hanlon wrote to the editor of The New York Sun:
I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
Papa says, "If you see it in the Sun, it's so."
Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?
Frank P. Church wrote The Sun's famous, oft-reprinted answer:
Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be that is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy.

Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We would have no enjoyment, except in the sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside the curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
Church's popular answer represents and advocates an utterly mystical worldview -- one where man is low, little, helpless -- one where the universe of science is barren, while what is really real and truly valuable is hidden behind the veil of the supernatural, accessible only by faith and feelings. It is a sustained attack on reality and reason, including the genuine spiritual values important to human life.

Understandably, those lacking a mystical bent (like me!) do not smile on this answer to Virginia. Several years back, after seeing Church's response printed yet again, I thought about my young nieces and nephews and I wondered what better answer to Virginia I might send their way if the issue ever arose. Looking around the web, nothing I found fit the bill. Everything was either not focusing on the positive orientation to reason and reality that would be healthy, or was downright mean-spirited, and sometimes even destructive (as with those that urge Virginia to nurture thoughts of Santa as a vicious myth and sue her lying parents for deep psychic wounds caused by such child abuse).

So I decided to try my hand at an answer: same length, similar style and language, equivalent unapologetic advocacy of a worldview (but a healthy one this time) -- ostensibly directed to a child in that age, but really designed to spark adult understanding in any age.

How would you answer Virginia? (I'll share what I wrote next time.)

Originally posted by Greg from NoodleFood, ReBlogged for Meta Blog


Objectivism Online Recent Forum Posts
  • In her handbag - The Fountainhead
  • Lisa Cuddy on House M.D. as Dagny Taggart
  • Objectivist ethics and professional ethics
  • A Good Rule
  • Amazon Tax Spreads to Other States
  • Is it irrational to care what strangers think about you?
  • Lierre Keith Attacked by Anarchist Vegans
  • Non Objective art
  • Bill Maher
  • "In any given set of circumstances, there is only one action poss
  • Is it a denial of existence?
  • How do you define evil and malevolence?
  • Broken units, broken men
  • Taxes/Funding the Government
  • Javelin Argument for Infinity
  • ObjectivismOnline needs a new home ASAP!
  • Becoming More Technologically Competent
  • Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?
  • Equality
  • Email Notification of Replies


  • Latest Essays
  • Rick Warren: Master Assimilator for the Christian Collective
  • Billy Graham and the Christian Crusade Against Truth and Freedom
  • Sean Hannity and the Tactics of the Enemy
  • Rush Limbaugh: Voice of the Religious Threat in America
  • Barriers to Entry in the Canadian Labor Market - by Alexander Marriott


  • Latest News
  • Announcing the Egosphere!
  • Announcing the Premium Forums!
  • New Amazon Search Box
  • New Objectivism Wiki!
  • Syndicate Us!


  • The Objectivism Wiki: Recent Changes



    February 2010
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4 5 6
    7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    14 15 16 17 18 19 20
    21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    28            


    Meta-Blog Archives
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • February 2003
  • October 1998


  • Recent Meta-Blog Entries
  • GOP Joins Thought Police
  • Mayor Bloomberg: The Gun-Toting Nanny
  • Quick Roundup 497
  • A Clear Agenda of Repeal
  • Brook on the Estate Tax
  • Hearts of Darkness
  • More on Gay Marriage
  • Quick Roundup 496
  • A World without Nuclear Weapons?
  • Not Unintended Consequences



  • Google






    Who's Online
    We have 3 guests and 3 members online
    Random Image
    No Images
    Random Quote
    Login Form





    Lost Password?
    No account yet? Register

    Warning: Parameter 1 to modules_html::module() expected to be a reference, value given in C:\www\ObjectivismOnline\includes\Cache\Lite\Function.php on line 92
    Newsfeeds





     
     
    Powered by Joomla | Designed by David Veksler