[Ask the Gulch] What is the greater risk to our freedom as a country, religious, faith-based culture with its mystical standards of the good, or the collectivist, altruist ethical and political ideology? Why would you choose one of these in a 2-way vote?
Posted by jconne 5 years, 10 months ago to Ask the Gulch
Western culture's focus on the "Individual" and requiring self reliance and responsibility comes from the thousands of years it took our ancestors to figure out.
So you see, it's really not mystical. We can get into the weeds discussing the ritualistic bicameral practice and organizing of these understandings....I too, shy away from these indoctrinations.
In short, I'd take western values over bicameral collectivist perversions of humanity any day of the week and twice on sunday.
Self sacrifice Kills...just say NO!
(Hearing of this, Obama quickly announced he was actually born in Kenya and has a birth certificate to prove it.)
Western culture is not biblically based. Western culture has a broad root base, but Christianity is something nailed on above the ground.
From the very first, Christians attacked each other over questions of theology. That was why the Emperor Julian re-instituted pagan worship: he wanted to end the street brawls between Christians.
On the other hand, as many schools of philosophy as were around, Epicureans, Stoics, Peripetetics, and Platonists did not run around in gangs stabbing each other.
We see the same thing going on in our time: Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland (with Catholic churches in America raising money to support terrorism), the Jews and Muslims (of course), but Shia versus Sunni and ISIS killing Sufis, and centuries of Hindus versus Muslims and both versus Sikhs versus them back... on and on... Meanwhile do the physcis graduate students studying string theory bomb the beer gardens of those who refuse to accept it? No!. Reality and reason bring peace and prospertiy. That is the basis of Western civilization.
Western Civilization was a long time coming to capitalism, and merchants were not held in high esteem, but a slave could become a millionaire, buy his freedom and gain Athenian citizenship. On the other hand, Christianity hold that "PHILARGYRION" (philos=love + argentos=silver) the love of money is the root of all evil.
We have to realize that the same bicameral perversions affected church leaders and organizers as did the rulers through the history of civilization. They too were engaged in power struggles. The forefathers of western civilization could see through all that and assemble the self evident truths from the pagan bicameral mysticism's it was all wrapped in. The organizers tainted the learning's, the teachings, the history to keep the wealth in their control...no different than the global delete ruleless class still does today.
The overall influence of the original Christian and Hebrew message, minus the mysticism, was how to behave yourself and prosper in an ethical, moral way; not to mention, how to use one's new found mind instead of one's temptation ridden compartmentalized head.
It's like I state in my book: "In all things, good, bad and ugly, there is a bit of truth, if only to realize that which is not."
That's the best description of how I see it.
"A moral code impossible to practice, a code that demands imperfection or death, has taught you to dissolve all ideas in fog, to permit no firm definitions, to regard any concept as approximate and any rule of conduct as elastic, to hedge on any principle, to compromise on any value, to take the middle of any road. By extorting your acceptance of supernatural absolutes, it has forced you to reject the absolute of nature." -- Galt's speech
If something is true it is absolutely true. There is no other kind. But you had better know what you are talking about, how to apply it, and not drop context.
The Ten Commandments are not absolute principles, they are commandments. The religious notion of ethics is duty. See Ayn Rand's "Causality versus Duty" in Philosophy: Who Needs It.
It is in your self interest to charge all the market will bear. Yet, if you go to a coin show or numismatic convention, and watch what happens on the bourse floor, people "leave money on the table" all the time. "Greysheet is $205, but you can have it for $175." OK 20-40-60-80-100; 20-40-60-80. Thanks, Keep the 5."
They are "buying" good will. They are exchanging the values of respect. In "Bourgeois Virtues" Dierdre McCloskey points out that self-interest among the roofers of Omaha is not the self-interest among a nest of rats -- though the left confuses the two.
Would I sell something for less than it cost me? Ouch! No, of course not.... Unless, it were in my self-interest to have the cash now and eat the loss... I had an economics prof who was (only mostly) free market. He subscribed to the subject theory of values. But from that basis he got his first lesson in on the first day: You would pay a dollar to get a quarter if you needed to make a call from a pay phone.
The error of absolutism would justify killing the person who offered to sell you a quarter for a dollar. See the comments from the Tariff Crowd here, for instance. Objectivism places the absolute in context.
Of course these days, the tables have turned, behaving well, speaking objectively or just observing can land one in jail.
The only truth that I recognize are the fundamental and physical laws of nature and the universe that we have a fair degree of understanding. (North attracts to south, positive electricity flows to (-) ground...etc). If these things weren't true, we likely would not be here to argue the point.
That truth doesn't change, only our understanding of those truths...everything else is an opinion or a theory.
[and yes, The work of Julian Jaynes is still a theory, but like The Electric Universe Theory...it's some of the best theory's going right now...in a 100 years?...who knows, but basing some observations upon our best understandings is how we learn where it's spot on and where it falls short.]
Again, The only absolutes, the only truth to be reckoned with; are the physical and natural laws as best we understand them.
I've been a committed atheist since discovering Rand when I was 20, after 16 years of Catholic education. Actually, 12. 4 were in the future when I left the Uber-Left University of Michigan for a private, Jesuit university. Unlike many of Christian sects, we were taught the Old Testament along with the New.
IMO the former is the more "rational" in terms of it's "laws" and morality. Of course it is ultimately based on faith and contains numerous mystical concepts and contradiction, but I agree with OUC that it's incorrect to dismiss and entire religion or religions out of hand. As rational beings, we can sort out the useful and interesting from the rest.
You do not have a right to believe whatever you want.
"You do have a political right to an opinion. However, that is not to be confused with the epistemic right to an opinion. The epistemic right to an opinion, says Whyte, is similar to the right to boast. Just as you first must achieve something worthy of boasting, so, too, is the “right” to an opinion earned by correctly identifying facts and then explaining them rationally. "
https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2...
And here:
" Beliefs are factive: to believe is to take to be true. It would be absurd, as the analytic philosopher G E Moore observed in the 1940s, to say: ‘It is raining, but I don’t believe that it is raining.’ Beliefs aspire to truth – but they do not entail it. Beliefs can be false, unwarranted by evidence or reasoned consideration. They can also be morally repugnant. Among likely candidates: beliefs that are sexist, racist or homophobic; the belief that proper upbringing of a child requires ‘breaking the will’ and severe corporal punishment; the belief that the elderly should routinely be euthanised; the belief that ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a political solution, and so on. If we find these morally wrong, we condemn not only the potential acts that spring from such beliefs, but the content of the belief itself, the act of believing it, and thus the believer."
https://aeon.co/ideas/you-dont-have-a...
The "controversy" over a "right to believe whatever you want" is not about absolutes, it is about equivocation on the meaning: A political right to believe something is not an epistemological 'right' to be taken seriously no matter what you say. "Controversy" over that arises only with those who demand that their arbitrary assertions be respected as cognitive value.
Among the many problems with the Ten Commandments and other claims in the top response, is that they are absolutes. Objectivism is not absolutism. Certain metaphysical facts, including facts about human nature, are absolute. But lying under oath, coveting your neighbor's ass, and so one are not absolutely immoral. Much of the Ten Commandments is irrelevant. Even the parts that seem "useful" are dependent on the objective context of self-interest.
Objective context of self interest make me think of billy bobs self interest of claiming: He did not have sex with that women; using a narrow definition of sex.
We could both spout examples to an frow but I think you get it.
For one thing, you stopped being grammatical -- weather for whether and "to an frow" -- which indicates emotional response. You are more insightful when you are cool headed.
Bicameral, as I think you know, refers to pagan man,( not being aware of his own awareness) and of course, unicameral meaning self introspection or consciousness.
Or, lets describe it this way: Imitation conscience,- meaning survival fear of consequences from unseen forces and Conscience guided by experience, reason and mutuality.
But I am just curious: What would a die hard objectivist consider good behavior, a behavior that keeps one out of hot water and doesn't harm or take unfair advantage of others.
Lets leave: "self interest" out of it because that could mean most anything, or sound vague.
The broad outlines are found, easily, under "Self interest" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon online
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sel...
But if you search there for "Man qua Man" you find:
"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.
Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
“Man’s survival qua man” means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice."
-----------------------------------
And, yes, I understand the "bicameral mind." We have discussed it before. We both read Julian Jaynes. I will point out that even today, bicameral people live among us. Joan of Arc was a bicameral: she heard "voices"; in other words, she did not identify her motivation as being internal to herself. Even closer to home, I wrote and published a peer-reviewed article with another student in a graduate physics class. He told me that he knows that people speak of having a voice in their head, but he does not. Smart guy, all in all, but bicameral.
(I too, have met folks, mostly the young, that say they do not have the voice of self, nor the voice of another in their heads.)
My work is heavily involved with the problems between bicameral entities and unicameral conscious beings. Most bicameral's exist in governments and akin to what I call: The global parasitical humanoid delete ruleless class.
Mankind's insight into a few rules of behavior to heed in a quest for a peaceful society was a watershed moment in bicameral times. To many, it's common sense and perhaps that's the way AR thought of them...but they certainly are not false, there is no Objective commandments to reject them.
I don't think we need to go through each one, but it is clear that Christianity and Judaism adopted them and western civilization benefited by them.
I get the reaction from an over barring pointed finger of some Christian sects and get the dichotomy of honoring a parent that doesn't deserve that honor. I think there was a much deeper physical connection there that really can't be ignored. How we choose to do so is another story; also, that bad neighbor can be a strain on one's tolerance and mutuality, which is really that dreaded "L" word, outside the family unit, that everyone gets wrong.
Worship is another one which many misread. It's really a profound appreciation, in bicameral times it was subjugation but a conscious being can understand that one should appreciate his own existence and be humbled by the forces that caused that to be. Mankind has a tendency to "Humanize" everything; not to mention our bicameral ancestors thought they walked with entities that caused their presents here of earth. It seems to me, those entities were equally bicameral.
Rand did not consider commandments as moral since they are not the chosen. Moral actions are chosen actions whether good or badly mistaken.
For a Christian, commandments are not to be taken by choice, but are taken under the understanding of being punished by God if not accepted. You might counter that one has free will in the matter, but a commandment does not allow free will.
Commandments are anti objective.
The bicameral brain and mind is alive and well with the two hemisphere brain and the conscious and subconscious minds.
Oh, we might beef about one or two of them but the insights were pretty basic...natural law of the universe...like what Cicero wrote about.
The entire tradition of ethics as duty, self sacrifice as moral, and unreason in thinking, all of which still plague humanity in the 21st century, is the result of millennia of religious influence. The question of religion versus collectivism and altruism is a false alternative based on a false dichotomy.
All of it fails, including your Ten Commandments, when analyzed by a standard of reality, reason, and self-interest.
False witness? When questioned by the police of a dictatorship about your politicial beliefs, you have every right to lie. Jehovah is a false idol, if you stop to think about it. Why honor your parents if they are not worthy of it?
That is why I refuse to make the false choice offered.
The German people chose to back Hitler as a practical matter in spite of his obvious evil principles. Many Americans have chosen the GOP for similar reasons. Both of the US parties are careful to keep their evil camouflaged, having learned from Hitler and other evil statist murderers. (I do not equate the GOP to the Nazi Party and the Dems may be a closer fit, but both parties are evil statist murderers differing in degree.)
You said:"Francisco d'Anconia did not reject the good. He did reject evil."
I'm glad we agree on this, Mike. If you don't think so, then you have a long discussion with yourself.
The vast majority oif Germans were not at all rational-empiricists and individualists. Whether it was family-church-and-state or whatever else, they abandoned reality and got what they wanted: to be bombed out of existence.
I agree with you about the GOP vs Dems. They are cut from the same cloth really, only differing in degrees.
I did get what I voted for with Trump, I think. I wanted a slowing down in the march to straight socialism, and I think I am getting that. I had better enjoy it, as I think the ride will be over in 2020. As to 2018, I suspect Trump might lose one or more of the houses in congress, but his VETO will still be in play to be an obstruction to radical socialism.
Your alternative this past election was a real crook who was selling access to a crooked government for her and her 'stronger together" followers.
Enjoy Trump while it lasts. Next year his ability to do anything substantive might be eliminated if he loses one or both houses of congress. In 2020, we could get a real socialist this time agound, given the massive support of a bernie sanders type
At least we got a few years slowdown in the march to socialism, which you should be applauding.
Collectivism is not concerned if you have an abundance or not...they are gona take what ever you have or even don't have...like it or not; your forced to sacrifice for the greater good; which of course is the good of themselves.
Not to mention, there is always a "Privileged class.
A religions historically teach collectivism. i don't know of Rand wrote about this, but Greenspan wrote about talking to Rand about it, about how going up against collectivism often means going up against people ancient religious beliefs.
That is why the choice offered here is a false dichotomy. The objectivists identified it. The conservatives fell for it and chose religiion as their preferred practice of anti-man and anti-life.
1. Ronald W. Reagan, strong in his faith, wore it on his sleeve, promulgated rules against abortion, etc.--and consistently defended the rights of the individual against collectives of any kind, lowered taxes, etc.
2. Barack H. Obama II. If he was strong in any faith except a personality cult based on himself, then it would be the Muslim faith. And even then, his acts were more along the line of granting them special favors than actually joining in their worship or trying to persuade them to accept him as a religious leader. At the same time he was a total collectivist. "You didn't build that!" etc. With him began the deliberate conflation of police/military/judiciary with nationalization of the rest of the economy, beginning with health care.
Now compare the United States economy under these two Presidents.
Were you better off after eight years of Reagan than you were after eight years of Obama? I certainly was. (And I'm better off now after two and a half years of Trump.)
In principle, both are sh$$, and while the faith side doesnt burn me at the stake for being a witch anymore like earlier, it generally leaves me alone. On the other hand, the collectivist side takes money from me constantly, and passes altruistic laws which DO mess with my life.
BUT, I am NOT famous enough that the powers that be would care what I think.
If anyone asks, I would of course tell them what I think on the subject, probably labeling me as some sort of infidel.
The founding documents of this country were political, not philosophical. They did not reference Christianity. The few mentions of 'God' were deistic and equivalent to Nature, not Christianity. The country was founded on Enlightenment values, not Christianity. The this worldly and egoist life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness for your chosen values on earth was the opposite of Christianity. Founding this country would have been impossible based on medieval mysticism and dogma.
My point is: If one denies the Christian God, they are left to their own fate. Individuals are free to act in their own interest.
If one denies Allah, doctrine prescribes death. Surely, you see how this impacts individuals and societies.
Rejecting mysticism and religious historical revisionism is not "closed minded impenetrable atheism dogma". Your personal attacks and your misrepresentation of reason and individualism in the founding of this country, while promoting your religious faith, do not belong here.
Careful Brett. Ad hominem. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
Many think it was all about sacrifice but it's not unless of course, you desire to kill, rape, lie, being miserable to everyone, take from everyone never to create values or be what ever you will, no matter the consequences you might face, or any other temptations of one's bicameral brain.
Is that really a sacrifice?
I also support the arguments of Thomas Paine in "The Age of Reason," where he strips the religious trappings and some of the nonsense from a moral structure. Paine was very much a proponent of individual freedom and self interest being a healthy foundation for society. Ayn Rand would approve.
Collectivism is poison, so I'd have to vote for a religious-based culture, preferably a moderate religious sect.
Religion is poison. Why choose either? Why allow yourself to be confined to a false alternative by someone posing a false question by dropping context?
However, consider the leftists' encouraging non-assimilated immigrants growing the voting roles to support their "progressive", collectivist, power agenda. This reduces the immigrants' opportunity to thrive and assimilate vs just survive in collectivist mediocrity. And this drive the country away from the freedom that make it the most moral country ever conceived.
That informs a lesser-of-evils voting decision. This is not pragmatism as it's not unprincipled. And it's definitely practical.
I wish hillary supporters wore special armbands so I could see the enemy more clearly and efficiently.
I don't see a lot of pins or bumper stickers, but I know 90% of my city at least voted for her. I know for a fact not all of them are supporters because many of them openly said they felt like Sanders should have had the nomination. So you if you see a random stranger, you can guess with some degree of accuracy.
Yes. I suspect we haven't heard the last of them. I read that people running for Congress are running as moderates, but I wonder if for president people want a freak show, and that could easily be someone like Sanders. OTOH the pendulum could swing back to boring. My gut feeling is that socialism is a greater risk than people realize. I hope I'm wrong.
"Hillary people just wanted"
There are countless reasons various people had other than straw men reasons.
There are the quiet deplorable who could vote to keep the socialists out. But the millennial seem to be rock solid pure socialists and will eventually win out as deplorable die off
We agree on the threat but not the mechanism. Watch for people who like raunchy antics one-day vote for socialism. I hope I am wrong and that does not happen.
They generally don't. They're hurt, and they want to hurt someone else.
One problem related to this is too many people seeing themselves as victims. I may have been misreading it as a child and young adult, but in the 80s and 90s I felt like people debated whether gov't should tax "we the people" to make various things happen. Today I feel like it's more openly about should we tax other people to make various things happens for us. Bernie Sanders was the most direct: "Billionaires", spoken with contempt, and meaning "somebody else, not we the people." I think this is a bad thing (maybe a trend), but I can't tell if it's really a trend or if it's always been with us and maybe I only realized it in early middle age.
I think it was always “tax the rich”. Because it’s they who have the money. I think the liberals have adopted the “victim” mentality in order to get goodies. It’s right out of the atlas shrugged playbook as the wealth of the country slowly decreases and the leftists look to blame someone. I think it’s a natural trend as socialism takes hold and the rubber meets the road
We all should watch very closely how things are going in Venezuela. It’s how things will go here as socialism becomes the norm. We got a reprieve for a few years with trump- a slowdown in leftist political actions. Without a civil way, it won’t last tho
The millennial generation is not "pure socialist", but it is, in general, more accepting of collectivist premises and policies and more ignorant of history because of what it has been taught and not taught.
Many Trump supporters could very well back a socialist. Populism is collectivist.
The Democrat strategic leadership knows that electoral success generally depends on avoiding the appearance of the ideological left as extreme as Sanders and Clinton. But the party leadership is not unified, and it does not fully control who runs and how they present themselves. Some of them want to campaign more explicitly and some pretend to be 'moderate'.
They know that all of them once in a dominant position of power they will push to impose more control, expecting that the public will accept it once in place (as Marxists always expect), and they know that legislation once passed is almost impossible to reverse once a constituency is in place. That is why with enough power they are willing to ram through major collectivist legislation and administrative policies as they did under Obama.
Running along not far behind are the Republicans under the driving premise of 'me too but slower''.
Religion coexisted with the American Economic Expansion of the 19th century just fine. Collectivism brought it to its knees.
But the world is a complicated place.
Religion turns a blind eye (or worse) to all sorts of prejudices - slavery, women's suffrage, gay marraige, etc., whereas socialism embraces all those people. Karl enslaves all equally.
For my vote, I'd abstain.
But if I had to choose I'd pick religion. I'm not worried about our social progress.
This isn't about "economic or personal freedoms". Economic freedom is personal freedom. This country was founded on the principle of the rights of the individual.
Is this story in the Bible somewhere? If so, this Bible story shares a plot element with AS.
The wording of the question leaves much to be desired, BTW. There are way too many false premises embedded in it to address in a single post, aside from its construction resulting in a false conundrum.
Homo-sapien, as a herd animal, probably doesn’t chose either option, as much as they take the path of least resistance.
That act is not an altruistic one, instead, it's in one's own self interest.