Galt would have refused Conservatives from the Gulch just like he would have refused Liberals
Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years ago to Philosophy
Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
The second side of things that the atheist tends to ignore is that "because God said to do it" is only half of the situation. An end is also presented. The path to get to the end lies in doing what is asked even though the goal is beyond the horizon or behind a closed door (choose your analogy). Atheists get so wrapped up in the fact that they can not see the end right now that they deny it even could exist - nor do they look for signposts. Theists choose to believe that the goal does exist even though they can not detect at the moment - and they look for the signposts that give them hope to continue.
"... there is no evidence whatsoever that its consciousness can exist outside that range, since its physical means of perception and processing information are not present."
Atheists tend to reject the proof put before them as well as the means of perception. I could tell you that I have proof of myself. Would it matter?
The only way to settle the controversy for one's self is to decide that the truth is more important than one's preconceptions. To do that, one must posit what may be then take the journey to see if it is there.
My response is again to focus on the principles themselves first and foremost. If the exercise of those principles proves false, one can deduce that the derivation was also in error. "The proof is in the pudding" as they say.
Actually, what I said is that to rely on the assertion of a negative is fallacy and behooves us to attempt to prove the positive. If you took that as a missive, I apologize.
"The entirety of objectivism is based on accepting only what is readily observable" (emphasis mine)
And that is to me intellectually lazy. We can not observe gravity directly, yet we know it exists as a force every bit as real as the proverbial falling apple. We know electricity exists even though we can not "see" the electrons which make it up. And even much of what we know now was not "readily observable" even a hundred years ago - mankind had to build the tools with which to explore such! The claim that nothing exists outside of what our limited senses can at present detect is wholly undermined by the advances of science itself!
"An often overlooked, but very important tenant of objectivism is the rejection of any forms of acquiring knowledge that are not one of these two. Such examples would be divine revelation, intuition, hereditary instinct, etc."
That's like saying that just because one doesn't know how to identify or use a mass spectrometer that it isn't a valid tool. As a father, I've watched my wife exercise the "eyes in the back of her head" too many times to deny the notion of either intuition or hereditary instinct. Divine revelation is nothing short of confirmation of the entire notion of deity. Not only that, but one would literally be denying the very proof of the positive!
So in the pursuit of truth, what I would say is that first of all one must suspend one's active disbelief long enough to posit what might be. This is consistent with any inventor. One must be willing to posit what would have to be for god to exist, then once that idea has been formed, to devise a test.
You mention an interesting one: the notion of "rights from God". Now, please feel free to correct me if you determine I am misrepresenting your objection, for I am taking liberty here, but let us ask a question about rights: if our presence on this planet at this time is not accident, but was in fact facilitated, would that not mean that our ability to enjoy or take advantage of the rights and abilities we have was entirely dependent on the force which created this place and opportunity for us - altogether independent of our beings? Would not then we owe some debt to the facilitator of our opportunity? Another question which tickles at my brain is also why would a being facilitate such in the first place?
Please, then. Tell me what you have found. However if your answer is that you "have faith," then that is not finding, but abdicating reason.
"In pursuit of proof, one must first quantify or describe what one wishes to prove, does one not? Before one can say there is no "supreme being", one must characterize/define exactly what one says can not exist."
I would say this is not incorrect. I cannot say if it is true in all cases, but it seems true enough to assume it to be correct for the sake of discussion. Rand and Peikoff do a fantastic job of defining what it is they are refusing to accept as real... anything that is not bound by the laws and rules of reality. By definition, a creator of existence would have to have existed outside of, prior to, and completely unbound by existence... or put another way, that it does not fall within existence, or that it doesn't exist. It is a logical impossibility. This is a gross oversimplification of the argument, but it makes the point well enough for now.
Closer to your argument, however, one does not need to know every aspect of a given entity in order to conclude whether its existence is logically possible or not. One only need find a single logical inconsistency for the proof to brek down. This is basic logic. Then, when the logical inconsistency identified is something so central to any possible definition of an entity, such as its very identity and nature of existence, is found to be inconsistent with reason and logic, one can comfortably conclude that it does not exist. This is not a proof, per se, but a validation, as one cannot prove an axiom. I think we would both agree that the existence of a creator of existence could be defined as a primary or axiom in a religion.
Your final paragraph is completely littered with leaps of logic and subjectivist definitions of reality. While basic critical thinking can tell you that you are committing any number of logical fallacies, including the false dichotomy, strawman, and appeal to authority, Leonard Peikoff's 1976 lecture on Objectivist Metaphysics soundly puts your philosophy to rest, rationally speaking that is. You can continue to accept it after reading this, but you cannot accept it and continue to claim that it is a rational decision, but instead that you reject the self-evident axioms of objectivism of the laws of identity and existence, and the corollary primacy of existence.
https://campus.aynrand.org/campus/glo...
The main problem with the types of individuals described in this (which is obviously not all people who call themselves conservative or liberal, but what people call themselves does not change the definition. Words are not subject to the whims of individuals or the masses, they have meaning) is their basic axiom. Namely the metaphysical primacy of consciousness over existence. Both believe this logical error and differ only in their opinion of whose consciousness is the one that controls existence. The conservatives conclude that God's consciousness does, and liberals that society's collective consciousness does. Of course, an Objectivist's conclusion about both of these opinions is not only that consciousness CANNOT alter, create, destroy or affect existence in any way on its own, but that neither of those two entities actually exist.
In pursuit of proof, one must first quantify or describe what one wishes to prove, does one not? Before one can say there is no "supreme being", one must characterize/define exactly what one says can not exist. To me, that means one must define the attributes of such an entity and determine if such existed, how one would go about finding it, what purpose it may have, what may motivate it, etc. Now whether one chooses to engage in such a mental exercise is purely individual and is what I think the Founding Fathers would protect under "pursuit of happiness" (Declaration of Independence) and certainly "religion" (First Amendment).
I look at the existence of this planet, of a specific size, rotational period, composition, axial tilt, presence around a certain class of star of a certain age and I consider the possibility of such being random and the mathematics of that alone are staggering. Then I consider the probability of the creation of a peptide chain and it's protective environment simultaneously that would lead to DNA and self-replication even of a single-cell organism with the required specialization in organelles. Then I consider what would be required to simultaneously develop whole systems of interoperating organs into a human. The sense of hearing requires seventeen separate steps alone - the notion that such a chain of events (and its interpretation by the neural system) somehow precisely developed both by accident and simultaneous accident defies reason. To me, there is ample proof to support the notion that this world is not an accident. Therefore I must conclude that because the probability of accident is so remote as to be absurd, I must go looking for the most probable reasons - not rely on the least probable.
It makes very very glad I'm not one of them. Which one? Either one. Both. I'm now more than ever convinced conservatives and liberals exist only in the minds of Hollywood, the media, and the propagandists at Rino/Dino HQ
Whew... back to the real world. if they don't know what they are I'll not be the one to break the news. It's a single word. Nothing.
I am arguing that neither conservatives not liberals have principles, but random grab-bag values based upon nothing other than vague intuition, feelings, or the expediency of the moment, which an inescapable result of holding a philosophy based not in reason but in mysticism.
Rand does take atheism another step forward however, by claiming the entire concept of any supernatural entity or mystical presence outside of reality is irrational. And just like the rest of her philosophy, you can choose to except this or not. The entirety of objectivism is based on accepting only what is readily observable in reality, or what can be proven based on The axioms you derive from your observations.
Reason is man's sole means of survival, and our sense perception is our only means of acquiring knowledge. An often overlooked, but very important tenant of objectivism is the rejection of any forms of acquiring knowledge that are not one of these two. Such examples would be divine revelation, intuition, hereditary instinct, etc.
The reason this is important is because that is the only way one can reach the conclusions about the importance of individual and human rights that Objectivism does. Any other derivation of rights falls apart at its beginning and leaves an inconsistent result among man's secondary rights, or concludes that man has no rights at all. The "rights from God" argument falls into the latter category, as rights that are given can always be taken away at a whim, and as such are not rights at all but permissions from a master.
Don't even get me started on how the dignity of man is entirely diminished by the inescapable soul/body dichotomy of any religion.
I will state however, that the last part of the Objectivist puzzle to fall into logical place for me was the complete rejection of mysticism. Maybe it'll come, maybe it won't. We are all learning and interested in her ideas, so let's continue discussing.
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Ayn Rand falls in the second category, which can be summed up as: ““There is no evidence of a creator, so there is no reason for me to believe in one, so I don’t.” The burden of proof rests with those who assert a positive claim. You are not logically required to prove, for instance, that an invisible elephant does not exist in the next room.
Much better.
“For those who believe in evolution, they have no explanation for the origin or termination of consciousness - none whatsoever.” Of course they have an explanation. It may not be complete, and scientists may make new discoveries regarding consciousness, but much about the nature and requirements of consciousness are well known and not particularly controversial. Consciousness is awareness, and presupposes both the existence of a conscious entity and one or more entities to be aware of. If a being does not exist, it cannot be conscious. If a being lacks awareness, it cannot be conscious. If a being has a temporal beginning and a temporal end, its consciousness can span that range, but there is no evidence whatsoever that its consciousness can exist outside that range, since its physical means of perception and processing information are not present.
That's certainly not how I read their comments as documented in either the Federalist Papers or Anti-Federalist Papers. What the Founding Fathers were concerned with was maximizing and maintaining individual liberty by imposing checks on the governmental apparatus which might attempt to usurp those rights and freedoms (as hitherto seen in the British monarchy and Parliament). Now to that point self-restraint was and remains key, but I think you confuse liberty and freedom with absence of consequence. Self-restraint is the inner attribute and conscious choice to defer action in the present in favor of some alternative/"better" outcome in the future. If our nation still suffered under the burden of "self-restraint" common to the Founding Fathers, there would be no Benghazi, IRS-gate, Fast and Furious, or any number of other debacles, nor would our government be the size or rapacity of its current state.
"If you are to argue that our ethics have changed..."
That list would be far too long to enumerate in a post. I would point to the welfare programs, constraints on the Second Amendment, electronic data-gathering without warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and could go on and on. From an ethical standpoint, this nation used to value hard work and independence - those notions are all but surrendered to the communistic mindset so lauded by Bernie Sanders' followers that I think it most plain and obvious that our nation's ethos has altered significantly from those days. I would simply ask you turn your assertion on its head and prove to me that things have stayed the same. It won't take but five minutes for you to abandon such a course for lack of foundation.
"The point central to this whole post is that conservatives are just as wrong as liberals, just on different topics."
What you are really complaining about here is that you disagree with the principles of either. Rather than rely on generalizations, however, let's get to specific principles and go from there. It's all fine to point and label but this is merely distraction, adding little of actual value. People can be neither right nor wrong - only principles can achieve either of those two attestations. So I would move to focus on principles and allow the appellations to fall where they may. Select a principle of either side and go from there.
My first observation that it is hard for one to find what one does not wish to look for. I also point out that one must be able to describe in fair specificity what one is seeking before one attempts to go looking and one must be searching in the right place using the correct tools and methodology. A failure in any of these areas will lead to a failure to find. Most erroneously conclude that nothing exists, rather than examining to see if there is a fundamental flaw in the search itself.
"... As has been pointed out many times in this forum, most current Americans wouldn't know what rational freedom was if it bit them in the behind. You'd hear them yell, "Anarchy, Anarchy!"
Life is easy for me because I'm near the end of it. I can take the road less traveled, or just sit by the side of the road and be a friend to man. I can spread around the wisdom I've accumulated if anyone asks, or just mouth off as I see fit. The consequences to me at this time are almost nil."
...Herb. I've got two little kids. This has really forced me to evaluate the machine. If I didn't have them I'd be such a different person. I wouldn't care. Now...I care, but I can see that there's nothing I can do to help the country anymore. I just want the state to leave my family alone. Man - that is a challenge. It is downright spooky how hard it is to navigate this system with kids. (assuming one cares about their own kids) I am teaching my kids to think globally.
I agree with you that we have not defended Liberty appropriately, and that is the reason we are losing it, not that our culture or whatever is changing.
Many of our biggest losses of Liberty have come from when the statists on the left find agreement with the altruists on the right. That results in the welfare state, the patriot act, corporate income taxes, prohibition, the drug war, etc.
The point central to this whole post is that conservatives are just as wrong as liberals, just on different topics. Neither, however, holds a rational or consistent philosophy to begin with, and so both are incapable of using reason to support their positions. They are left appealing to vague feelings or other mystical mumbo jumbo.
There is the question of derivation of principle, and the question of the principle itself. You focus on derivation, I point back to the principle in the first place, because the derivation of such is irrelevant until the principle is proven. One does not become an authority on a matter based on false understanding or application of principle - unless one is a modern-day politician. ;) Authority comes from proper application and understanding of true principles.
"That question cannot be sidestepped by changing the definition of god from conscious overlord to mere metaphor."
I sidestep nothing. I merely back up long enough to establish definitions so that the conversation may proceed forward.
One of the core principles being challenged is on the origination of consciousness itself. For those who believe in evolution, they have no explanation for the origin or termination of consciousness - none whatsoever. They may hypothesize that somehow consciousness is formed or created from nothing and somehow dissolves back into that void at some arbitrary state. I actually hold to the notion of primacy of consciousness in parallel with primacy of existence by challenging the notion of evolution itself. I don't believe that consciousness puffs into existence, nor that it will puff out of existence, but rather that it persists. Just as matter neither is created nor destroyed, neither is consciousness. It merely changes form.
I leave the implications of such a notion to you for consideration.
You also assume an evolutionary standpoint as the crux of your argument: that somehow man's philosophical achievements mirror scientific ones. I would argue that such can not be assumed at all.
The choice of philosophy is all about where one desires to end up - the fate of one's consciousness. If one believes that consciousnesses merely pop into existence and then wink back out, a relatively short span of applicability of principle reigns. If one, however, believes that consciousness neither pops in nor out of existence, suddenly those "antiquated" ideas are just as relevant today and just as valid an option.
If man is a thinking, reasoning animal and has been so from the beginning, what has really changed over the millenia is that we have started out each successive generation upon the shoulders of our ancestors. Of course our reach will be higher. But to argue that the intellects themselves are somehow greater is unsubstantiated.
Suffice it to say, and this leaves a lot of explanation on the cutting room floor, its a matter of perception. Not my perception or your perception but the perception of all things from God POV. I'm not copping out. If you want to talk I will, just not here and not posted to this forum.
I'll talk at length with you or a group of you through skype or Teamspeak (I own a server). I think, if you are able to think outside the box, you'd at least find my "take" on God, reality, and the "why" things happen compelling.
If you, or anyone, want to talk and listen to my view on this let me know and I'll PM you my skype account or the settings to my teamspeak server.
Load more comments...