Leaderboard

Ayn Rand answered exactly your question in her course The Art of Non-fiction. The question was: "Doesn't free will contradict the idea that man has a specific identity?"

1. They believe in an Aristotelian conception of a soul as a natural faculty of biology. A soul or consciousness is a capacity of certain animals' neurological systems which gives it motor functions and awareness, as well as a selective focus and, in humans, the ability to abstract and form concepts and language. 2. A common argument of determinists is that since free will is conceived of in a Platonic or religious manner, in order for free will to be valid, it would have to be a magical or infinite. This is called libertarian free will. The law of identity certainly does refute this type, but not a naturalist version. Free will, like vision or hearing, being a biological function, is dependent on organs, is finite and limited. 3. Again, much like the same dichotomy, we can either have moral relativism on the one hand or a substantive, but mystical morality. But in an Aristotelian-Randian conception, morality isn't random emotiveness or appeals to the supernatural, it is common sense principles for achieving a good life and well being. Since man is a being with a specific nature, and that nature is governed by laws knowable by rational inquiry and investigation, just like say a tree or an elephant, humans are capable of investigating the conditions and principles necessary for survival, continued growth and success of living entities. It is, again, a naturalistic view of ethics.

+1

I'm not sure on what you base your view of the psychology of middle-class Americans. What Trump saw was the the number of whiny whites had grown to a point where they had become a voting bank that nobody was speaking to. He saw that the Democratic party had started ignoring these people, and not been giving them enough hand-outs. These people felt invisible. In the wake of the great recession, they were also scared. For 40 years, ever since early Japanese competition, people have been telling these cohorts that the world is changing and they'd better adapt. Many did. But, too many pouted and refused to adapt. As if the world owed them a living! Japan came, the Asian tigers came,...and there was blowback each time, but net-net the system adjusted. Then the Chinese came -- a billion workers. And these Americans, still competing mostly on their low-skilled labor -- and having not heeded a few decades of warnings -- were finally scared. The great recession was the final straw. These loser Americans were then looking for someone to blame for their folly. Trump saw that. And, trump is a master of blaming others. And truth has no meaning to him, so he was the right person at the right time. Hillary was seen as "status quo", so these unthinking Americans -- clueless about right and wrong political ideas -- wanted to kick out anyone conventional. A bit to his surprise, trump found himself leading. Being the zero-ego that he is, he was expert in reflecting back the emotions of the crowd. A populist in the worst possible sense. He does not represent self-reliance, self-esteem and independence. He won because he pandered to the whining low-middle class white voters who think the world owes them something, and who think any type of intellectualism is just trickery.