OK. Well, quite a few people in the gaming community will have heard of the game Bioshock, a first-person shooter which touts itself as a philosophical simulation engine. Actually the philosophical element seems to be little more than a smear job of objectivism. With the advent of a sequel to the game and a possible movie, I thought it would be fair to point out that Bioshock does not have anything to do with objectivism in practice. If the objectivist government of Rapture had done their jobs, by protecting people's rights, punishing robbers and murderers, and yes by stopping the fraudulent sale of poison as medicine, then the catastrophe most likely would never have happened. However, the creators fail to understand (as do many) the difference between anarchy and capitalism. Anyway, XOmniverse did a nice piece explaining exactly why the "argument from Armageddon" isn't a decent argument to address any social theory. Bioshock is just a smear job. It's amazing that people are interested enough in objectivism to make the smear job into a movie, but Atlas Shrugged keeps getting put off. Anyway, here's the vid. Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=k2kw51Q1kr8&gl=US
Translator
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
An Interesting Debate
I don't have much to say this time. But I have been involved in some interesting debates lately. So, I thought I'd post links to them so you can check them out if you're interested.
Cheers.
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/05/05/rand%E2%80%99s-atlas-myth-america
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/15/a-conservative-tears-apart-ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged.html
(Please understand that I am not sanctioning the work of these journalists. The reason I'm linking there is because the resulting discussions make for a good read.)
Cheers.
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/05/05/rand%E2%80%99s-atlas-myth-america
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/15/a-conservative-tears-apart-ayn-rand-and-atlas-shrugged.html
(Please understand that I am not sanctioning the work of these journalists. The reason I'm linking there is because the resulting discussions make for a good read.)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Why Do People Still Not Get It?
I received the following question that someone sent to my YouTube channel: bakukenshin, and I thought it fit in nicely with the topics on this blog.
"What do you think of people who have read Ayn Rands books but refuse to believe in or accept the philosophy of Objectivism? Are they simply refusing the ability of the mind or are they afraid of the idea of being responsible for their own decisions? Or does it just go against too much of what they have been "taught"?"
My response was as follows:
I think there are several reasons why people could read her books and not accept the entire philosophy of Objectivism.
1. Most people read a book and they pick and choose what they like about it and what they don't like. Most of the time this coincides with values that they have already decided upon. So a lot of people take Objectivism piecemeal, which results in a lot of what you can see in the Republican party. That is a lot of people who try to push for capitalism and free markets (at least when they're campaigning) but at the same time pushing to restrict civil liberties (such as with the anti-abortion movement, domestic surveillance, etc.).
2. To accept Objectivism, people need to accept three basic premises. Reality is. Existence exists. Consciousness is conscious. Unfortunately most of the gatekeepers to modern philosophy (professors, novelists, poets, scientists, etc.) have been indoctrinated in and come to believe the opposite of at least one of these. Since these are axioms, unless they realize that there is no way to disprove these premises without using them, then they cannot be expected to accept them. In order for someone to change their mind on axiomatic propositions they need to start from the standpoint that reason is the final arbiter of their viewpoints, that they cannot resist what their senses and the rules of logic tell them simply based on their feelings or a priori assertions. But, if they accept that already, then they are already half way to Objectivism anyway.
3. The philosophy of Objectivism isn't self-evident. The reaction of many new objectivists when they've decided to accept it, is to assume that because they read Ayn Rand's works and it makes sense to them, that it must therefore automatically make sense to everybody. Unfortunately, this would be a mistaken assumption. Everybody starts from a different starting point. Some people have devoted a lot of time thinking seriously about fundamental philosophical questions. Some people have not. Even among seriously committed thinkers, it took a long historical tradition starting with Aristotle leading up through the founding of America and it took Ayn Rand's genius building on all that to bring the various threads of history into sharp enough focus to formulate Objectivism. Some people just make some honest mistakes along the chain of abstraction.
4. Some people know better and are consciously malevolent enough to deny it anyway. But be very careful before jumping to conclusions about who you place in this category. Sometimes I think Objectivists need to understand their own philosophy better before they start leaping to judgments about others.
I think it's a little like teaching someone a skill at which you are highly proficient, but the person you're teaching isn't. Like your native language for instance. You don't even think about it. But try teaching it to someone who only knows Chinese. You quickly find out that you have to know things about the structure of your language at a much more detailed level than you'd ever have dreamed of having to worry about before. More importantly, the process of clarifying your thoughts, so as to better present them to others, teaches you things about your own mode of thought and helps you understand your beliefs better than before.
If you seriously teach any subject for a significant period of time, you will understand that subject in a fundamentally different way than if you had just accepted that you knew it and left it at that. I think this is true of math, English, art, and especially philosophy. If you want to truly understand why people don't get it, and understand better just what it is that makes sense to you, then try to think about how you would explain it to someone, calmly and clearly. Try to talk to people about it. Try to teach it. Through this process of discussion, through refining your arguments, through thinking about the points people raise in opposition, you will come to understand the philosophy that much better. And you will have a much clearer image of what it represents, and which people are the ones who should truly be morally condemned. But remember, in these discussions, if you find yourself losing your temper, resorting to insults or irrational tactics or agencies, then you've already lost. You need to accept that when it happens (as it inevitably will), go back and rethink it through.
Objectivism is ultimately understanding yourself. You have to start there. And it can be the hardest place to start. Especially when you're wanting to rush out and change the world. But it is central. After all, that's where everything in Ayn Rand's philosophy begins.
I hope this helps somewhat. I know it didn't exactly address the question as you stated it, but I, too, am struggling with the line between people who are mistaken and people who are consciously evading truth. So, until I reach a conclusion on that, I like to recommend caution before leaping into judgments on people. It can be tempting, and it can be difficult to see the distinction. (This by the way is the very issue that led to the split between Kelley and Peikoff and why the "The Atlas Society" and "The Ayn Rand Institute" aren't on speaking terms.) The above is my best attempt to deal with it myself. Read as much as you can on the philosophy, both the good and the bad. Don't get sidetracked on following any one person's interpretation. Remember the most important perspective is your own. Try to form it in as balanced and rational a way as possible.
--I think the only thing I can add to this right now is in this prior blog post here. I am still very interested in the opinions of other practicing objectivists. If anybody has an opinion on this matter please feel free to post your comments.
Best premises,
American Anti-theist
"What do you think of people who have read Ayn Rands books but refuse to believe in or accept the philosophy of Objectivism? Are they simply refusing the ability of the mind or are they afraid of the idea of being responsible for their own decisions? Or does it just go against too much of what they have been "taught"?"
My response was as follows:
I think there are several reasons why people could read her books and not accept the entire philosophy of Objectivism.
1. Most people read a book and they pick and choose what they like about it and what they don't like. Most of the time this coincides with values that they have already decided upon. So a lot of people take Objectivism piecemeal, which results in a lot of what you can see in the Republican party. That is a lot of people who try to push for capitalism and free markets (at least when they're campaigning) but at the same time pushing to restrict civil liberties (such as with the anti-abortion movement, domestic surveillance, etc.).
2. To accept Objectivism, people need to accept three basic premises. Reality is. Existence exists. Consciousness is conscious. Unfortunately most of the gatekeepers to modern philosophy (professors, novelists, poets, scientists, etc.) have been indoctrinated in and come to believe the opposite of at least one of these. Since these are axioms, unless they realize that there is no way to disprove these premises without using them, then they cannot be expected to accept them. In order for someone to change their mind on axiomatic propositions they need to start from the standpoint that reason is the final arbiter of their viewpoints, that they cannot resist what their senses and the rules of logic tell them simply based on their feelings or a priori assertions. But, if they accept that already, then they are already half way to Objectivism anyway.
3. The philosophy of Objectivism isn't self-evident. The reaction of many new objectivists when they've decided to accept it, is to assume that because they read Ayn Rand's works and it makes sense to them, that it must therefore automatically make sense to everybody. Unfortunately, this would be a mistaken assumption. Everybody starts from a different starting point. Some people have devoted a lot of time thinking seriously about fundamental philosophical questions. Some people have not. Even among seriously committed thinkers, it took a long historical tradition starting with Aristotle leading up through the founding of America and it took Ayn Rand's genius building on all that to bring the various threads of history into sharp enough focus to formulate Objectivism. Some people just make some honest mistakes along the chain of abstraction.
4. Some people know better and are consciously malevolent enough to deny it anyway. But be very careful before jumping to conclusions about who you place in this category. Sometimes I think Objectivists need to understand their own philosophy better before they start leaping to judgments about others.
I think it's a little like teaching someone a skill at which you are highly proficient, but the person you're teaching isn't. Like your native language for instance. You don't even think about it. But try teaching it to someone who only knows Chinese. You quickly find out that you have to know things about the structure of your language at a much more detailed level than you'd ever have dreamed of having to worry about before. More importantly, the process of clarifying your thoughts, so as to better present them to others, teaches you things about your own mode of thought and helps you understand your beliefs better than before.
If you seriously teach any subject for a significant period of time, you will understand that subject in a fundamentally different way than if you had just accepted that you knew it and left it at that. I think this is true of math, English, art, and especially philosophy. If you want to truly understand why people don't get it, and understand better just what it is that makes sense to you, then try to think about how you would explain it to someone, calmly and clearly. Try to talk to people about it. Try to teach it. Through this process of discussion, through refining your arguments, through thinking about the points people raise in opposition, you will come to understand the philosophy that much better. And you will have a much clearer image of what it represents, and which people are the ones who should truly be morally condemned. But remember, in these discussions, if you find yourself losing your temper, resorting to insults or irrational tactics or agencies, then you've already lost. You need to accept that when it happens (as it inevitably will), go back and rethink it through.
Objectivism is ultimately understanding yourself. You have to start there. And it can be the hardest place to start. Especially when you're wanting to rush out and change the world. But it is central. After all, that's where everything in Ayn Rand's philosophy begins.
I hope this helps somewhat. I know it didn't exactly address the question as you stated it, but I, too, am struggling with the line between people who are mistaken and people who are consciously evading truth. So, until I reach a conclusion on that, I like to recommend caution before leaping into judgments on people. It can be tempting, and it can be difficult to see the distinction. (This by the way is the very issue that led to the split between Kelley and Peikoff and why the "The Atlas Society" and "The Ayn Rand Institute" aren't on speaking terms.) The above is my best attempt to deal with it myself. Read as much as you can on the philosophy, both the good and the bad. Don't get sidetracked on following any one person's interpretation. Remember the most important perspective is your own. Try to form it in as balanced and rational a way as possible.
--I think the only thing I can add to this right now is in this prior blog post here. I am still very interested in the opinions of other practicing objectivists. If anybody has an opinion on this matter please feel free to post your comments.
Best premises,
American Anti-theist
Saturday, May 16, 2009
100th Post at An American Anti-theist Abroad!!
Woohoo!! OK, so I'm feeling a little self-congratulatory. This makes the 100th post on this blog. Just to sum up. Since I started this blog in April 2008, I've had some more active periods than others. (1 post was actually salvaged from an older blog that I never really took anywhere.) But since I started putting this together, I've been able to write about a lot of different subjects of importance not only to me, but also to a number of people around the world. How big a number I'm not quite sure, but given the recent popularity of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul, it seems like the winds may be changing. So, we all have to do our bit to fan the fires.
Anyways, just to give a status report on how I've been doing, here are some statistics.
Since this blog started officially in April 2008 it has received 5,825 visits from 68 countries.
THE TOP THREE VIEWING COUNTRIES ARE:
1. USA @ 4948 views
2. Japan @ 529 views
3. UK @ 65 views
THE TOP THREE VIEWING STATES (USA) ARE:
1. California @ 717 views
2. Texas @ 485 views
3. New York @ 395 views
THE TOP THREE VIEWED BLOG POSTS (aside from the main page which registered 1196 views) ARE:
1. Dr. Anne Wortham: Objectivism and the Black Community @ 5010 views
2. Dr. Anne Wortham: Black Victimhood vs. Black Individual Responsibility @ 307 views
3. Happy Science: Religious Cults in Supposedly Atheist Japan @ 142 views
Anyways, I just want to thank all the people who have taken the time to read what I've been posting. Also, more importantly, I want to thank all the people who've taken the time to sincerely think about what I've been talking about here. I'm sure that we can all make a difference. I'm still small fry here, but if I can reach even one person and convince them to look at the world even slightly differently, then I've gotten as much reward as I can reasonably expect. Changing the world is really for all of us. We have to change our morality, the standards of our belief and judgment. The alternative is to horrible to imagine. That's why we have to act. The native state of all systems is entropy. It is only through concerted and consistent human action that we can keep things from sliding into decay, whether that decay is cultural, moral, economic, political, scientific, cognitive, or spiritual.
Finally, I'd like to close with a video from Ron Paul. He's the only prominent figure in politics today who unabashedly supports a rationally integrated world view and truly advocates liberty and justice. Here he is talking about the torture debacle. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty as sin in leading us into such debauchery. For my prior articles on the issue please see these earlier posts:
Sam Harris and the Fallacies of Torture
And this is what happens when thugs get moral license...
Torture: The Madness that Wouldn't Die
Supreme Court Puts Foot Down on Abrogation of Due Process
Not Everything that Parades as a Democracy IS a Democracy
Ashcroft-Torture Bad Call But No Biggie
Enjoy the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skeom9K8fww
Anyways, just to give a status report on how I've been doing, here are some statistics.
Since this blog started officially in April 2008 it has received 5,825 visits from 68 countries.
THE TOP THREE VIEWING COUNTRIES ARE:
1. USA @ 4948 views
2. Japan @ 529 views
3. UK @ 65 views
THE TOP THREE VIEWING STATES (USA) ARE:
1. California @ 717 views
2. Texas @ 485 views
3. New York @ 395 views
THE TOP THREE VIEWED BLOG POSTS (aside from the main page which registered 1196 views) ARE:
1. Dr. Anne Wortham: Objectivism and the Black Community @ 5010 views
2. Dr. Anne Wortham: Black Victimhood vs. Black Individual Responsibility @ 307 views
3. Happy Science: Religious Cults in Supposedly Atheist Japan @ 142 views
Anyways, I just want to thank all the people who have taken the time to read what I've been posting. Also, more importantly, I want to thank all the people who've taken the time to sincerely think about what I've been talking about here. I'm sure that we can all make a difference. I'm still small fry here, but if I can reach even one person and convince them to look at the world even slightly differently, then I've gotten as much reward as I can reasonably expect. Changing the world is really for all of us. We have to change our morality, the standards of our belief and judgment. The alternative is to horrible to imagine. That's why we have to act. The native state of all systems is entropy. It is only through concerted and consistent human action that we can keep things from sliding into decay, whether that decay is cultural, moral, economic, political, scientific, cognitive, or spiritual.
Finally, I'd like to close with a video from Ron Paul. He's the only prominent figure in politics today who unabashedly supports a rationally integrated world view and truly advocates liberty and justice. Here he is talking about the torture debacle. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty as sin in leading us into such debauchery. For my prior articles on the issue please see these earlier posts:
Sam Harris and the Fallacies of Torture
And this is what happens when thugs get moral license...
Torture: The Madness that Wouldn't Die
Supreme Court Puts Foot Down on Abrogation of Due Process
Not Everything that Parades as a Democracy IS a Democracy
Ashcroft-Torture Bad Call But No Biggie
Enjoy the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skeom9K8fww
Celebrating Justice
In the spirit of celebrating the right to life, in the midst of life-hating torture mongers like Pelosi and Cheney, here's an essay that an associate wrote for the Ayn Rand essay contest a while back. It's a discussion of justice as presented in Atlas Shrugged. Enjoy:
“I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” (979).
This quote at the end of John Galt's address to the world encapsulates the concept of justice developed throughout Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It is an oath by an individual, a thinking human being. The standard against which this oath is made is the highest possible, that of one's own life. That standard is reinforced by Galt's insistence that he loves his life—a caveat necessary for establishing the value of swearing by that life. What follows is the core: the idea that each and every person bears full responsibility for their own life and that it is both morally wrong to try to shift that responsibility to another and to shoulder the responsibilities of others thereby sheltering them from the consequences of their actions.
Rand's concept of justice is centered around the individual. Individuals have certain rights. These rights are guarantees of freedom based on the necessities of life as a human being. A just government is one which honors those rights. An unjust government violates them. A government is formed with the purpose of protecting the rights of individuals and what that essentially means is protecting people from assaults on their life. “But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one...is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality” (973). Furthermore, because a system of government is simply a group of individuals created and maintained by the consent and active participation of its citizens, a government cannot exist without the sanction of those citizens. An unjust government cannot maintain itself without creating the illusion of legitimacy. But the illusion cannot be maintained without the sanction of the participants. Rearden understands this and thus refuses to participate in his “trial” in any way. Consequently, the judges find themselves powerless and must let him go. They cannot force his consent. They can only move his body or take his assets. But either of those actions would risk surrendering the illusion of legitimacy that is vital to maintaining their power.
“I will not help you pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognized. I will not help you preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you pretend that you are administering justice.” (443)
Rearden acts in full accordance with Rand's concept of justice. He both refuses to contribute to his own immolation and shrugs off the burden of maintaining the illusions of others. He holds his own life as the highest value and the measure against which other values are judged. It is because of this supremacy of an individual's judgement, consent, and action that justice is not a value which is bestowed by government, but instead a value with which a just government must act in accordance.
Justice can also be seen to apply to individuals in their private interactions. The personal relationships of the main characters consistently echo these same themes. The principles are the same. Contradictions are impossible. If something seems not to fit, then there is something wrong with your assumptions. Power over another's actions cannot be forced, it can only be given or conceded. Lillian controls Rearden only through his own concession of guilt and he is miserable for it. In the absence of force, all interactions are voluntary. Rearden's emotional prison was one of his own making, built by his concessions to an ethical system inconsistent with the demands of reality. Justice entails obtaining what one deserves. In her treatment of Rearden's and Dagny Taggart's relationships, Rand shows how determining what one deserves is a process of rational evaluation that is intimately connected with one's estimation of their own self-worth. The key here being the word “rational”. Initially, Rearden views himself as shameful and lowly, hence he thinks he “deserves” Lillian. He thinks that justice is being served. But his reasoning is flawed. He deserves better. When he finally corrects his thinking, he realizes that there is nothing just about his situation with Lillian and ends it.
Dagny's relationships, too, are a series of character judgements. She is with Francisco, Rearden, and Galt in turn because they represent progressively purer models of her own rational values. She ends with Galt because he is the embodient of perfection in man as she sees him and she is the embodiment of perfection in woman as he sees her. However what makes this just is not only their mutual assessment but that that assessment is grounded in reality. Rearden's initial assessment of Lillian as someone who was worthy to be his wife (i.e. the best reflection of his own values) was flawed and not based on anything evidenced in her personality by fact of action but simply the desire to see that in her. This is supported by the parallel descriptions of their rationales for getting married.
The idea that justice implies a balance between values—that what you get out should equal what you put in—is not new. Neither is the idea of reality and reason being the fundamental determiners of what is just. Many cultures have viewed these as desirable. However, there is not a single example of a culture that does not create a contradiction at some point and thus undermine one or another. For example, Buddhism promotes an awareness of reality and one's place within it as fundamental to determining morality. However it then proceeds to say that wisdom is understanding reality as it “is” and not as it “appears” to be. What reality “is” is not defined, neither is what is meant by “illusion”. This vacuum is not rare in religious works. In the same way that fortune-telling may seem accurate, the definitions are left vague so that people can fill in their own assumptions. If someone believes that reality, really is, then they can interpret the religion as mirroring their own beliefs by interpreting illusion as being the lies people tell to cover their evasions. Conversely, if one is actively seeking to evade reality, they are free to loathe the “illusion” that is this world and claim that those involved in worldly affairs are somehow inferior or misguided. Judeism, Christianity, and Islam tend to cut out the whole issue of reason and claim that what is claimed to be just is so because God so ordained. Even thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas had to make compromises to accommodate their religion. In modern thought, too, there are few advocates of truly rational justice. The most prominent were the philosophers of the Enlightenment—Locke, Paine, Mill, and Jefferson among others. However, none of them ever made the explicit claim that it is equally as immoral to shelter people from the consequences of their actions as it is to expect others to shelter you. It is in this sense that the concept of justice in Atlas Shrugged stands apart.
“I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” (979).
This quote at the end of John Galt's address to the world encapsulates the concept of justice developed throughout Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It is an oath by an individual, a thinking human being. The standard against which this oath is made is the highest possible, that of one's own life. That standard is reinforced by Galt's insistence that he loves his life—a caveat necessary for establishing the value of swearing by that life. What follows is the core: the idea that each and every person bears full responsibility for their own life and that it is both morally wrong to try to shift that responsibility to another and to shoulder the responsibilities of others thereby sheltering them from the consequences of their actions.
Rand's concept of justice is centered around the individual. Individuals have certain rights. These rights are guarantees of freedom based on the necessities of life as a human being. A just government is one which honors those rights. An unjust government violates them. A government is formed with the purpose of protecting the rights of individuals and what that essentially means is protecting people from assaults on their life. “But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one...is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality” (973). Furthermore, because a system of government is simply a group of individuals created and maintained by the consent and active participation of its citizens, a government cannot exist without the sanction of those citizens. An unjust government cannot maintain itself without creating the illusion of legitimacy. But the illusion cannot be maintained without the sanction of the participants. Rearden understands this and thus refuses to participate in his “trial” in any way. Consequently, the judges find themselves powerless and must let him go. They cannot force his consent. They can only move his body or take his assets. But either of those actions would risk surrendering the illusion of legitimacy that is vital to maintaining their power.
“I will not help you pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognized. I will not help you preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you pretend that you are administering justice.” (443)
Rearden acts in full accordance with Rand's concept of justice. He both refuses to contribute to his own immolation and shrugs off the burden of maintaining the illusions of others. He holds his own life as the highest value and the measure against which other values are judged. It is because of this supremacy of an individual's judgement, consent, and action that justice is not a value which is bestowed by government, but instead a value with which a just government must act in accordance.
Justice can also be seen to apply to individuals in their private interactions. The personal relationships of the main characters consistently echo these same themes. The principles are the same. Contradictions are impossible. If something seems not to fit, then there is something wrong with your assumptions. Power over another's actions cannot be forced, it can only be given or conceded. Lillian controls Rearden only through his own concession of guilt and he is miserable for it. In the absence of force, all interactions are voluntary. Rearden's emotional prison was one of his own making, built by his concessions to an ethical system inconsistent with the demands of reality. Justice entails obtaining what one deserves. In her treatment of Rearden's and Dagny Taggart's relationships, Rand shows how determining what one deserves is a process of rational evaluation that is intimately connected with one's estimation of their own self-worth. The key here being the word “rational”. Initially, Rearden views himself as shameful and lowly, hence he thinks he “deserves” Lillian. He thinks that justice is being served. But his reasoning is flawed. He deserves better. When he finally corrects his thinking, he realizes that there is nothing just about his situation with Lillian and ends it.
Dagny's relationships, too, are a series of character judgements. She is with Francisco, Rearden, and Galt in turn because they represent progressively purer models of her own rational values. She ends with Galt because he is the embodient of perfection in man as she sees him and she is the embodiment of perfection in woman as he sees her. However what makes this just is not only their mutual assessment but that that assessment is grounded in reality. Rearden's initial assessment of Lillian as someone who was worthy to be his wife (i.e. the best reflection of his own values) was flawed and not based on anything evidenced in her personality by fact of action but simply the desire to see that in her. This is supported by the parallel descriptions of their rationales for getting married.
The idea that justice implies a balance between values—that what you get out should equal what you put in—is not new. Neither is the idea of reality and reason being the fundamental determiners of what is just. Many cultures have viewed these as desirable. However, there is not a single example of a culture that does not create a contradiction at some point and thus undermine one or another. For example, Buddhism promotes an awareness of reality and one's place within it as fundamental to determining morality. However it then proceeds to say that wisdom is understanding reality as it “is” and not as it “appears” to be. What reality “is” is not defined, neither is what is meant by “illusion”. This vacuum is not rare in religious works. In the same way that fortune-telling may seem accurate, the definitions are left vague so that people can fill in their own assumptions. If someone believes that reality, really is, then they can interpret the religion as mirroring their own beliefs by interpreting illusion as being the lies people tell to cover their evasions. Conversely, if one is actively seeking to evade reality, they are free to loathe the “illusion” that is this world and claim that those involved in worldly affairs are somehow inferior or misguided. Judeism, Christianity, and Islam tend to cut out the whole issue of reason and claim that what is claimed to be just is so because God so ordained. Even thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas had to make compromises to accommodate their religion. In modern thought, too, there are few advocates of truly rational justice. The most prominent were the philosophers of the Enlightenment—Locke, Paine, Mill, and Jefferson among others. However, none of them ever made the explicit claim that it is equally as immoral to shelter people from the consequences of their actions as it is to expect others to shelter you. It is in this sense that the concept of justice in Atlas Shrugged stands apart.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Fountainhead in a Nutshell
The last time I can remember an Ayn Rand reference on The Simpsons, Maggie was leading a communist style baby revolution ala The Great Escape. They were trying to escape the baby bottle hating harridan School marm at the Ayn Rand school for tots. So, it's a little refreshing that this time around, the Simpsons presented a more sympathetic presentation of Rand's philosophy. The clip, which for now is circulating on You Tube, has been added below. Hopefully it doesn't get removed. Anyways, it presents Maggie as a baby Howard Roark, and parallels Rand's novel The Fountainhead. It's good for an amusing bit of Rand lite and I even think it would be useful in introducing Objectivism to children. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CEX1P8MZnI
And if you're interested, here's an excerpt from the movie based on the book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CEX1P8MZnI
And if you're interested, here's an excerpt from the movie based on the book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4
Saturday, May 9, 2009
And Justice for All? But what is Justice?
With the resignation of chief justice Souter, Obama has yet another chance to skew the machinery of government so as to sustain his socialist agenda long after he has been replaced. Check out the link below for an article detailing why Obama's pragmatism really means amorality in a legal context.
When It Comes to Judges, 'Pragmatic' Means Unprincipled: How the president reasons that disregarding the rule of law can be a virtue.
When It Comes to Judges, 'Pragmatic' Means Unprincipled: How the president reasons that disregarding the rule of law can be a virtue.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Capitalism Didn't Fail...Just saying so doesn't make it true
So many leftist pundits are spouting off about the death of capitalism and how Greenspan was a libertarian so that proves that free-market policies don't work. Well, bullshit.
Greenspan was not a libertarian, he wasn't even an objectivist except perhaps in his youth when he contributed to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and advocated a return to the gold standard. But, of course he sold those views out right quick when they threatened to dampen his career goals. No, Greenspan was a soulless mercenary, who knew enough to know what was the right thing to do, and then did the wrong thing anyway. There can be few more damning indictments of a person's moral character than to knowingly choose to do the wrong thing.
As for the so-called failure of the free market system, well our market was not free of government intervention before, so it baffles the mind to think how people can actually convince themselves that we were actually under a free market system before this whole crisis developed. Of course it didn't help that Republicans were preaching free market principles while expanding government like there was no tomorrow, but all that proves was that the majority of Republicans were and still are hypocrites. At least if they have the sense to rally behind Ron Paul this time, perhaps we may see some change for the better. But with all the new legislation that Obama and his gang are going to be able to cram through the legislature, it's a bit like closing the barn doors after the horse has already fled.
Anyway, there's a very good article by objectivist Dakin Sloss over at the Stanford Progressive. It's a very succint and easy to understand explanation of how the government was involved in the economic collapse. I highly recommend it, so please check it out:
http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=343
Best premises,
American Anti-theist
Greenspan was not a libertarian, he wasn't even an objectivist except perhaps in his youth when he contributed to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and advocated a return to the gold standard. But, of course he sold those views out right quick when they threatened to dampen his career goals. No, Greenspan was a soulless mercenary, who knew enough to know what was the right thing to do, and then did the wrong thing anyway. There can be few more damning indictments of a person's moral character than to knowingly choose to do the wrong thing.
As for the so-called failure of the free market system, well our market was not free of government intervention before, so it baffles the mind to think how people can actually convince themselves that we were actually under a free market system before this whole crisis developed. Of course it didn't help that Republicans were preaching free market principles while expanding government like there was no tomorrow, but all that proves was that the majority of Republicans were and still are hypocrites. At least if they have the sense to rally behind Ron Paul this time, perhaps we may see some change for the better. But with all the new legislation that Obama and his gang are going to be able to cram through the legislature, it's a bit like closing the barn doors after the horse has already fled.
Anyway, there's a very good article by objectivist Dakin Sloss over at the Stanford Progressive. It's a very succint and easy to understand explanation of how the government was involved in the economic collapse. I highly recommend it, so please check it out:
http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=343
Best premises,
American Anti-theist
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
In Mourning for America
Do the math:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-budget7-2009may07,0,4310621.story
A 3.55 trillion dollar budget....17 billion dollars in budget cuts...a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars...
Now, seriously....any investor....any one sitting at home doing their finances, would they seriously think that these numbers are acceptable? When you're in debt, do you spend more hoping that you'll magically bring in increased revenues somewhere down the line? Do you buy 2 new cars, a GM and a Chrysler with the hope that if you give them some money, they may give you a job, or a raise? Does it make any sense to increase debt beyond our ability to pay it back? If you're in business, do you expand your company's operations when sales are down? If you're managing a household, do you go on a luxurious vacation, when the creditors are knocking at the door?
No, of course not. Anyone who did that would be at least grossly irresponsible, and possibly insane. Does it justify it any more to demand that our children and our children's children, that generations, yes, generations of our descendants will have to pay for these excesses? Doesn't that make it all the more evil, to assign debt to those who have no say in the matter, to burden them with an obligation to feed our folly? Is it satisfying to mark our children with the mark of Obama's breed of original sin?
This madness seems to know no bounds. I do not see a bright future for America until a significant libertarian presence is felt in Congress and the White House. As such, I've darkened the background of my page to reflect the feeling that America has entered a dark age of decline. Hopefully the grassroots efforts of advocates of liberty across the nation will one-day be enough to lift this blinding curtain of self-righteousness and end the orgy of self-immolation which is the American politic.
Just think of it, and does it make any sense:
$1,200,000,000,000 deficit
- $17,000,000,000 budget cuts
=$1,183,000,000,000 remaining deficit
....Just what kind of difference is Obama making?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-budget7-2009may07,0,4310621.story
A 3.55 trillion dollar budget....17 billion dollars in budget cuts...a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars...
Now, seriously....any investor....any one sitting at home doing their finances, would they seriously think that these numbers are acceptable? When you're in debt, do you spend more hoping that you'll magically bring in increased revenues somewhere down the line? Do you buy 2 new cars, a GM and a Chrysler with the hope that if you give them some money, they may give you a job, or a raise? Does it make any sense to increase debt beyond our ability to pay it back? If you're in business, do you expand your company's operations when sales are down? If you're managing a household, do you go on a luxurious vacation, when the creditors are knocking at the door?
No, of course not. Anyone who did that would be at least grossly irresponsible, and possibly insane. Does it justify it any more to demand that our children and our children's children, that generations, yes, generations of our descendants will have to pay for these excesses? Doesn't that make it all the more evil, to assign debt to those who have no say in the matter, to burden them with an obligation to feed our folly? Is it satisfying to mark our children with the mark of Obama's breed of original sin?
This madness seems to know no bounds. I do not see a bright future for America until a significant libertarian presence is felt in Congress and the White House. As such, I've darkened the background of my page to reflect the feeling that America has entered a dark age of decline. Hopefully the grassroots efforts of advocates of liberty across the nation will one-day be enough to lift this blinding curtain of self-righteousness and end the orgy of self-immolation which is the American politic.
Just think of it, and does it make any sense:
$1,200,000,000,000 deficit
- $17,000,000,000 budget cuts
=$1,183,000,000,000 remaining deficit
....Just what kind of difference is Obama making?
Monday, May 4, 2009
A Proposal for a Rational Code of Morality
I was just sorting through some old papers and ran across this thought experiment I wrote up almost 10 years ago. At the time I didn't understand objectivism anywhere near as I do now and was still rather tolerant of religious beliefs. At the same time, I was already very libertarian in my political beliefs. I'm posting this, not because I see it as the final word on morality or anything. On the contrary, I'm sure there are more than enough flaws...especially in my all too brief assessment of epistemology. However, I think it still raises some interesting points, and a novel way of thinking about moral decisions. Anyways, if you're interested, you can check it out here:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddt4f3w9_4hmscz7hk
As always, please let me know what you think of it. Good or bad. And then we can discuss it.
Best premises,
American Anti-theist
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddt4f3w9_4hmscz7hk
As always, please let me know what you think of it. Good or bad. And then we can discuss it.
Best premises,
American Anti-theist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
