Timeless words of Francisco D’Anconia Tuesday, August 19th, 2008
Posted by carltonstedman in objectivism, philosophy, politics.add a comment
See the link: link. One of the many great character speeches from Atlas Shrugged. Happened to see a link to it and had to post — great stuff.
The main theme is the morality of Capitalism (I’d argue, the only moral economic system). Of course, the practicallity should be more than enough, but many begrudgingly accept Capitalism (or denounce it entirely), thinking it is immoral and feeling guilty, only to fall back to their distardly ways.
Having just finished Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, a fantastic read that my Objectivist/switcher buddy at work gave me a copy of (he bought like 10 copies a number of years ago, gives them to people, thinking it’s in his best interest to spread the word of rational economics), of course I think of the practical reasons to oppose government intervention and regulation. I have also taken part in a recent Gentoo OTW thread, trying to explain just why so many folks are wrong in backing centrist/statist policies and why they are the cause, not result of or solution to, inflation; the forums are largely filled with Keynesian tripe, denouncing Austrian economics (read: true capitalism) as “old” and needing the “new” ideas of government intervention for a “change” and “hope” of America (sound familiar, Obama supporters?).
Of course, government intervention has really been the status quo over these last few millenia. And where has all this centralization brought us, but to a mixed economy encumbered by statist policies, lumbering along and making more stumbles behind than leaps ahead, giving up markets to more competitive outlets, non-coincidently with less regulation, such as manufacturing moving to China?
It is a readily-observable fact, spelled out time and again in Hazlitt’s classic text, that increased government regulation invariably leads to long-term cross-market increased unemployment, decreased wealth and decreased quality of living for all sectors. The farce is continued on because of the short-term boon to one specialist group by the enslavement of all others (a.k.a. subsidization), which is immediatiely visible by the common layperson, while the long-term detrimental effects are much more subtle, although eventually more far-reaching and with a net loss.
Surely, McCain will take further steps towards this wretched failing statist economy, but Obama is very sincere, and surely would do as he and his socialist think-tank supporters cry for, moving us quickly to a centrist economy, bringing America to economic ruin as soon as possible.
When will people wise-up and scream for an end to these fatal policies?
Elsworth Toohey reveals all Tuesday, August 21st, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in books, philosophy, religion.add a comment
Still reading Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, and almost done. Just read through a part where Elsworth Toohey, the villian, explains his evil plot to Peter Keating, who had made a Faustian deal with Toohey, unbeknowst to him. The story is really excellent, since the hero, Howard Roark, is the person everyone hates, since he is “selfish” or an “Egoist”, whereas Toohey is the “selfless” “humanitarian”. Toohey has just claimed that he wants power, to rule, and Keating ask’s him whom he wants to rule. Clearly draws parallels to religion. Wanted to reprint this part, although it is rather long (and not paragraphed at all!), so here it goes:
“You. The world. It’s only a matter of discovering the lever. If you learn to rule one single man’s soul, you can get the rest of mankind. It’s the soul, Peter, the soul. Not whips or swords or fire or guns. That’s why the Caesars, the Attilas, the Napoleans were fools and did not last. We will. The soul, Peter, is that which can’t be ruled. It must be broken. Drive a wedge in, get your fingers on it — and the man is yours. You won’t need a whip — he’ll bring it to you and ask to be whipped. Set him in reverse — and his own mechanism will do your work for you. Use him against himself. Want to know how it’s done? See if I ever lied to you. See if you haven’t heard all this for years, but didn’t want to hear, and the fault is yours, not mine. There are many ways. Here’s one. Make man feel small. Make him feel guilty. Kill his aspiration and his integrity. Preach selflessness. Tell man that he must live for others. Tell man that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one of them has ever achieved it and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it. But don’t you see what you accomplish? Man realizes that he’s incapable of what he’s accepted as the noblest virtue — and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness. Since the supreme ideal is beyond his grasp, he gives up eventually all ideals, all aspiration, all sense of his personal value. He feels himself obliged to preach what he can’t practice. But one can’t be good halfway or honest approximately. To preserve one’s integrity is a hard battle. Why preserve that which one knows to be corrupt already? His soul gives up its self-respect. You’ve got him. He’ll obey. He’ll be glad to obey — because he can’t trust himself, he feels uncertain, he feels unclean. That’s one way. Here’s another. Kill man’s sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognize greatness or achieve it. Great men can’t be ruled. We don’t want any great men. Don’t deny the conception of greatness. Destroy it from within. The great is the rare, teh difficult, the exceptional. Set up standards of achievement open to all, to the least, to the most inept — and you stop the impetus to effort in all men, great or small. You stop all incentive to improvement, to excellence, to perfection. Laugh at Roark and hold Peter Keating as a great architect. You’ve destoryed architecture. Build up Lois Cook and you’ve destroyed literature. Hail Ike and you’ve destoryed the theater. Glorify Lancelot Clokey and you’ve destroyed teh press. Don’t set out to raze all shrines — you’ll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity — and the shrines are razed. Then there’s another way. Kill by laughter. Laughter is the instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It’s simple. Tell them to laugh at everything. Tell them that a sense of humor is an unlimited virtue. Don’t let anything remain sacred in a man’s soul — and his soul won’t be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you’ve killed the hero in man. One doesn’t reverence with a giggle. He’ll obey and he’ll set no limits to his obedience — anything goes — nothing is too serious. Here’s another way. This is most important. Don’t allow men to be happy. Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. Happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. So kill their joy in living. Take away from them whatever is dear or important to them. Never let them have what they want. Make them feel that the mere fact of a personal desire is evil. Bring them to a state where saying ‘I want’ is no longer a natural right, but a shameful admission. Altruism is of great help in this. Unhappy men will come to you. They’ll need you. They’ll come for consolation, for support, for escape. Nature allows no vacuum. Empty man’s soul — and the space is yours to fill. I don’t see why you should look so shocked, Peter. This is the oldest one of all. Look back at history. Look at any great system of ethics, from teh Orient up. Didn’t they all preach teh sacrifice of personal joy? Under all the complications of verbiage, haven’t they all had a single leitmotif: sacrifice, renunciation, self-denial? Haven’t you been able to catch their theme song — ‘Give up, give up, give up, give up’? Look at the moral atmosphere of today. Everything enjoyable, from cigarettes to sex to ambition to the profit motive, is considered depraved or sinful. Just prove that a thing makes men happy — and you’ve damned it. That’s how far we’ve come. We’ve tied happiness to guilt. And we’ve got makind by the throat. Throw your first-born into a sacrificial furnace — lie on a bed of nails — go into the desert to mortify the flesh — don’t dance — don’t go to the movies on Sunday — don’t try to get rich — don’t smoke — don’t drink. It’s all the same line. The great line. Fools think that taboos of this nature are just nonsense. Something left over, old-fashioned. But there’s always a purpose in nonsense. Don’t bother to examine a folly — ask yourself only what it accomplishes. Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men. Of course, you must dress it up. You must tell people that they’ll achieve a superior kind of happiness by giving up everything that makes them happy. You don’t have to be too clear about it. Use big vague words. ‘Universal Harmony’ — ‘Eternal Spirit’ — ‘Divine Purpose’ — ‘Nirvana’ — ‘Paradise’ — ‘Racial Supremacy’ — ‘The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’ Internal corruption, Peter. That’s the oldest one of all. The farce has been going on for centuries and men still fall for it. Yet the test should be so simple: just listen to any prophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice — run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be your master. But if ever you hear a man telling you that you must be happy, that it’s your natural right, that your first duty is to yourself — that will be the man who’s not after your soul. That will be the man who has nothing to gain from you. But let him come and you’ll scream your empty heads off, howling that he’s a selfish monster. So the racket is safe for many, many centuries. But here you might have noticed something. I said, ‘It stands to reason.’ Do you see? Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don’t deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away. Don’t say reason is evil — though some have gone that far and with astonishing success. Just say that reason is limited. That there’s something above it. What? You don’t have to be too clear about it either. The field’s inexhaustible. ‘Instinct’ — ‘Feeling’ — ‘Revelation’ — ‘Divine Intuition’ — ‘Dialectic Materialism.’ If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn’t make sense — you’re ready for him. You tell him that there’s something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must feel. He must believe. Suspend reason and you play it deuces wild. Anything goes in any manner you wish whenever you need it. You’ve got him. Can you rule a thinking man? We don’t want any thingking men.”
"The things you used to own, now they own you" Wednesday, August 8th, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in ideas, life, philosophy.add a comment
I was reading this little article by Paul Graham: here.
I don’t always agree with the prolific Lisp programmer and writer, but, largely I tend to agree with this article. As this post title suggests, I immediately thought of the line in Fight Club when Tyler Durden tells the protagonist:
“You buy furniture. You tell yourself this is the last sofa I will ever need in my life. Buy the sofa, then for a couple of years you’re satisfied that no matter what goes wrong, at least you’ve got your sofa issue handled. Then the right set of dishes. Then the perfect bed. The drapes. The rug. Then you’re trapped in your lovely nest, and the things you used to own, now they own you.”
Sure, I get caught in the “bargain frenzy” sometimes, but I really try to think “do I *need* this?” before buying something. I need to try to remember that sometimes.
I find it interesting that Graham excuses his mass collection of books. “Oh books, they’re different,” is the impression you get. He doesn’t explicate it further, at least not clearly. I too find that books are different, as could be music and movies (but, at least for me, especially books). He says, unlike other stuff, books are “illiquid.” I’m not sure that’s the right way to say it.
But *why* are books different? Maybe because they are a source of knowledge? But what about fiction? Maybe because it sparks your thought process, and will be used and re-used for a long time, lent to friends and family, re-read years later? I’m not sure; it almost seems arbitrary choosing something he likes as free from the rule he sets out — almost.
I think it has to do with what worth *you* give it, versus what it may have been “worth”, money-wise, and how much money you’ve “saved” by getting it at a bargain price, et cetera. Something along those lines. Really, how much stuff around you is worth something *to you*. Keep what is, discard what isn’t, don’t buy what won’t be — I suppose that’s the ideal.
Hmm. Have to think more about it. But, I do think, in general, Paul Graham, Tyler Durden and I are on the same page (at least as far as material goods’ worthlessness is concerned).
Feelings vs. Evidence and Psycho-Analysis Wednesday, May 9th, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in philosophy.add a comment
A bit of philosophy today.
Feelings are wonderful. They can inspire the artist to masterpiece and lead friends to become lovers. However, they are not trustworthy. Feelings are nothing more than emotions, and emotions are not reasoned out. They are one of the most simple responses the human brain can muster, requiring very little processing, and are so subjective that they should be challenged. One should be skeptical of their own emotions, never mind the feelings of others. Emotions do not provide strong evidence-for. Even strong emotions make a weak justification-for.
Deeds should be driven by reason and logic when possible. Yes, there are some moments where indulging in one’s emotions is perfectly acceptable; yet, at some times, there is rational evidence-against making a strong case against simple feelings. In general, when their is evidence-against on one side, and naught but feelings on the other, the evidence-against invalidates the feelings with strong justification-against. If the side with feelings can find some evidence-for, besides the emotions and feelings, then it is strengthened and may be able to invalidate the evidence-against with strong justification-for. However, when a large amount of evidence-against stands contrary to the feelings, and weak or little evidence-for can be found, again evidence-against invalidates the feelings with strong justification-for. This is how rational life can be lived.
One tool to find evidence-against and evidence-for is psycho-analysis. One does not need to be a psychiatrist to understand the simple idea of asking ‘why’ and ‘how’, even for emotions. Likewise, one does not need to be a psychiatrist to yield fruitful results from questioning. Yet, the ‘answers’ obtained should themselves be taken with a grain of salt, since psycho-analysis can have a tendency to ask awkward questions. Every question has an answer, one of the fundamental concepts of science, but not every question has an easy answer. And sometimes, the person who is asked the question does not themselves have the answer. The awkward question, one with a difficult or complicated answer, can sometimes coerce the respondent to simply ‘make something up’, instead of just answering ‘I don’t know’, and perhaps make up an answer they believe the questioner would like to hear.
So, what should one do? Psycho-analysis does still have a point, and the idea is to try to find the answer. Simply questioning ‘why’ and ‘how’ can bring up fruitful answers. The ‘just because’ is never the truth, but sometimes it is difficult to get a respondent to go past this, as the question may be awkward and the answer more complicated than they can think. Like a question such as ‘why do you like blue?’ does have some answer, as to where the feelings come from, but is so difficult to answer since it is likely based on obscure associations and very old personal history; no one should feel inferior if they cannot answer something like that. Additionally, such questions have no evidence-against either, so the feelings justify themselves without the need for evidence-for. This is a weak justification-for though. It still may prove helpful to psycho-analyze them anyway, for perhaps some evidence-for does exist, to bolster a strong justification-for. Most feelings and actions should not yield such awkwardness. To cause the respondent to think of their actions and question their feelings, is important. Feelings should be questioned, and evidence-for must be found to overwhelm any evidence-against. This process defines a mature, rational, reasoning person.