Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

New Buddha

Regulars
  • Posts

    1344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by New Buddha

  1. There is no real reason to play the "definitions" game. A concept's definition is contextual. Sound can mean both a "vibration in a medium" and "what my ears hear". Both definitions are true. Essence and definition are not the same.
  2. The term “New World Order” does not describe a specific order. It, at most, indicates a change in the existing order of the day. Historically there have been several “World Orders”. From Ancient Greece and Rome to the Dark and Middle Ages. From the Renaissance and the Age of Reason (which stared in Britain and founded the U.S.) to the “Collectivist” Age (Marxist/Socialist). However, the one thing all “ages” have in common is Reason vs. Mysticism. Every society or age will, to a degree, be dominated by one or the other. This is not just true in the West but is fundamental to all human societies (and individuals as well). Currently the change in order is from Marxist/Socialist to “Environmentalist”. However, they are both Collectivist at heart and neither can withstand rational scrutiny. As Rand would say, “they are two sides of the same fraudulent coin”. The "science" behind climate change was dealt a serious blow by the Climategate Emails. Environmentalism as a New World Order has been in the works for several decades. Should one be concerned? Yes. But I personally believe that this will be the last dying gasp of the Collectivist ideology that has been inflicted on the world in the last century and a half. So are Objectivist concerned about the New World Order? The answer is that there is nothing really new about it. It is a fight that has been going on for centuries.
×
×
  • Create New...