Leaderboard

In a previous thread I was offered two mentally-stimulating articles to read in order to provide the Objectivist context for political discussion: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/07/liberal-right-vs-regressive-left-and-religious-right/ https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/ While I have mentally recorded those articles as defining the Objectivist context for discussion, I thought I should add that I consider it to be wrong. We know from history that the Left/Right distinction had its beginning in the French parliament of 1789. Those who favored maintaining France as a kingdom were seated on the right side of the room; those who favored removing the king by means of revolution were seated on the left side. The basics of right-wing and left-wing politics have made their way into 21st-century America as conservatives and liberals, respectively. Objectivism, which is a relative new-comer, wishes to revive the laissez-faire ideals of the 19th century (which lasted for about 15 years and ended with the publication of the Communist Manifesto). There are many ideological ways to divide right from left, e.g., nationalist vs. one-world socialist. According to late 1960s vernacular, the distinction was between "pigs" and "hippies." In reality, it was a distinction between self-control and extremes of hedonistic behavior. In the words of Timothy Leary, "Turn on, tune in, drop out". Another way of defining the difference is with the words "status quo" versus "change" (whatever is entailed by the word "change," but it usually entails some kind of revolutionary rhetoric). Objectivism redefines this distinction in terms of property rights. Property rights have long been considered the domain of the political right, while the political left wants to do away with property rights in favor of a more communal idea concerning the individual. The political right maintains a concern with individual rights - although not always strictly and with much hemming and hawing on where to draw the boundaries. The political left considers individual rights to be an outright hindrance to its ends. Ayn Rand placed no such right-wing boundaries on human rights. Her goals and ideals are revolutionary, and so there remains an element of European radicalism, i.e., an element of revolutionary expression exists in her philosophy. But it favors removing the faith-bound orientation of the right-wing and replacing it with a rational basis. While both sides are grounded in variations on faith, whether religious or mystical (right and left, respectively), they are self-defeating principles which relegate the purpose of serving individual happiness to a more-or-less indirect goal, if that. If not a goal on Earth, then happiness (or really, bliss) is at least a goal in Heaven for those on the right. So my take on the political spectrum is at least traditional, and is held by pretty much everybody except Objectivists. The idea that Objectivism is right-wing while all statist approach are left-wing seems to place Objectivism up on a very high perch from which it looks down on various forms of statists fighting toward goals that really aren't in opposition at all because they place the individual in the awkward position of being a slave to the State versus slave to God or some other deity. Either way, the individual is considered to be of relative unimportance. I believe that placing Objectivism in the center, the rational center, that is, at least maintains the right- and left-wing distinction where Objectivism takes whatever is potentially rational on both sides and uses it for its own rational ends.

It's hard to use a visual metaphor (left vs. right) and plug "good political philosophy" into that mix. If you list various key issues, you might be able to say whether the "left" or the "right" is better on that particular issue. (Often they're both wrong in different ways.) If the Green dots are the ideal positions on each issue, then this ideal (on any particular issue) would not lie in the middle of either the red or the blue. However, the term "centrist" would give that false impression. Added: France's new president, Macron, seems like a true centrist: someone who would choose to push policies that lie somewhere in between the red and blue, on a case-by-case basis. This type of centrism might be the best we can hope for in a polarized political environment.

Move very far away then get psychological therapy. Learning Objectivism is not your most pressing need now.

Sense of life is likely more of a passive component: how a man sees the world and his interaction with it. "Sense" implies an input or means of "viewing" or contemplating. Character although there is the passive component of how a man sees himself, is more active, and deals with something a man introspectively participates in, choice of principles and values. It is also more akin to "nature" or "identity", i.e. what a man IS, and as a result likely to do. These two are of course closely intertwined, but a man with a strong principled character can still have a sense of life which is for lack of a better term is "pessimistic" and a person whose sense of life is more on the sunny side can still be unprincipled.

I'll bet that those who've stopped thinking at 30 weren't exactly the epitome of thoughtfulness before that age.