Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Recommended Posts

It seems likely then that additional ideologies one encounters are filtered positively or negatively according to implicitly benevolent or malevolent outlooks, e.g. cherry picking, or nit picking.

Perhaps.  It would make sense to conceive of it that way.  But if you're referencing back to the issue of Islam, I'd like to point out that viewing anything within the context of one's own premises does not necessarily distort or invalidate one's judgment.

 

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps.  It would make sense to conceive of it that way.  But if you're referencing back to the issue of Islam, I'd like to point out that viewing anything within the context of one's own premises does not necessarily distort or invalidate one's judgment.

 

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

LOL, true... especially if they're out to get you because you're paranoid!

 

With reference back to Islam, an optimistic interpretation of jihad would vary from a pessimistic one, yes?  The 5 Pillars that support Islam, e.g. faith, prayer, concern for the needy, self-purification, and the pilgrimage, define jihad in terms of self-defense/improvement; which is hardly ideologically unique in justifying a right to live.  Supposing that an implicitly pessimistic individual was introduced to the Muslim community, it follows that a more aggressive meaning for jihad would be derived to accomodate a more aggressive individual outlook.  The question remains, is an ideology that promotes self-defense/improvement responsible for the aggressive actions of pessimists who claim to defend it?  Or, if Islam were removed, wouldn't pessimistic individuals simply adopt alternate ideologies and defend them aggressively??

 

I remain unpersuaded that the ideological root of terrorism is bound to any particular religion or politics.  The aggression of Radical Islamists is a clear and present danger to America, but no more so than aggression by any religion/politics that persecutes the unaffiliated. Clearly the greater threat to America comes from leaders that claim defense for aggression and sacrifice liberty for security, as initially suggested by the OP, and others...

 

 

Let's not pretend that we're being watched over by our guardian angel, here; we're being watched by an underhanded punk with a Napoleon complex.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, true... especially if they're out to get you because you're paranoid!

 

With reference back to Islam, an optimistic interpretation of jihad would vary from a pessimistic one, yes?  The 5 Pillars that support Islam, e.g. faith, prayer, concern for the needy, self-purification, and the pilgrimage, define jihad in terms of self-defense/improvement; which is hardly ideologically unique in justifying a right to live.  Supposing that an implicitly pessimistic individual was introduced to the Muslim community, it follows that a more aggressive meaning for jihad would be derived to accomodate a more aggressive individual outlook.  The question remains, is an ideology that promotes self-defense/improvement responsible for the aggressive actions of pessimists who claim to defend it?  Or, if Islam were removed, wouldn't pessimistic individuals simply adopt alternate ideologies and defend them aggressively??

 

I remain unpersuaded that the ideological root of terrorism is bound to any particular religion or politics.  The aggression of Radical Islamists is a clear and present danger to America, but no more so than aggression by any religion/politics that persecutes the unaffiliated. Clearly the greater threat to America comes from leaders that claim defense for aggression and sacrifice liberty for security, as initially suggested by the OP, and others...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm again with the missing post thingy

Looking back on the OP , both groups could be described as posing a threat to America , and both can be seen as examples of 'loose or weak' organizations. The various government agencies are headed and run by various individuals and groups. It is likely that these different individuals have varying views on their use of power. What would cause them to become an even greater threat , would be if the separate power wielders were to adopt an ideology that included the idea of centralization of power and worked toward the end of utterly destroying any remnants of structural checks and balances of the current government.

In the same way the umma could adopt as part of their ideology the same principles of centralization of power and become an even larger threat to America and any other nation that follows western ideals.

So instead of debating whether to hate the sin or the sinner, lets condemn both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking back on the OP , both groups could be described as posing a threat to America , and both can be seen as examples of 'loose or weak' organizations. The various government agencies are headed and run by various individuals and groups. It is likely that these different individuals have varying views on their use of power. What would cause them to become an even greater threat , would be if the separate power wielders were to adopt an ideology that included the idea of centralization of power and worked toward the end of utterly destroying any remnants of structural checks and balances of the current government.

In the same way the umma could adopt as part of their ideology the same principles of centralization of power and become an even larger threat to America and any other nation that follows western ideals.

So instead of debating whether to hate the sin or the sinner, lets condemn both.

That will be agreeable when the original sin is recognized to be unprovoked aggression, and the sinners as unprovoked aggressors.  Until then it's a shell game at best, with the premise being guilt by association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With reference back to Islam, an optimistic interpretation of jihad would vary from a pessimistic one, yes?

 Only where there is sufficient obscurity for multiple interpretations.

For example, going back to the black box from a stranger: an optimist would see the mysterious box and think "this is full of money" while a pessimist would think "this is full of explosives."  However, if one were to open the box and look inside, only one rational conclusion would be possible.

 

So there can be multiple interpretations and even internal disputes over the same philosophy, but only where there is some amount of underlying ambiguity (as in the case of Jihad).  And if one pays close attention, these interpretations follow clear and logical patterns.

 

Or, if Islam were removed, wouldn't pessimistic individuals simply adopt alternate ideologies and defend them aggressively??

 Back to whether ideas matter or not.

 ---------

 

I would condemn the sinner, but attempt to understand the sin (as in "know your enemy").

To declare that 'bad people do bad things' and simply leave it at that would be like declaring 'sometimes diseases kill people' and leaving it at that, which I don't think would work out very well (see the Dark Ages, both medically and philosophically).

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will grant unprovoked, but the aggressors , terrorists whether Islamic or not, choose targets based certain'reasons', eg ideology.

Terrorist rationalizations are no more credible than terrorist ideologies, and targeting innocents is a rational non-starter; it contradicts what retaliation is.  I don't care why a terrorist acts any more than I care why a rabid dog acts.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorist rationalizations are no more credible than terrorist ideologies, and targeting innocents is a rational non-starter; it contradicts what retaliation is.  I don't care why a terrorist acts any more than I care why a rabid dog acts.

 See, I think this is exactly where our actual disagreement is.  I do care by what reasoning a terrorist decides to initiate violence, just as much as I care about rabies.

 

You cannot fix the problem until you understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Only where there is sufficient obscurity for multiple interpretations.

For example, going back to the black box from a stranger: an optimist would see the mysterious box and think "this is full of money" while a pessimist would think "this is full of explosives."  However, if one were to open the box and look inside, only one rational conclusion would be possible.

 

So there can be multiple interpretations and even internal disputes over the same philosophy, but only where there is some amount of underlying ambiguity (as in the case of Jihad).  And if one pays close attention, these interpretations follow clear and logical patterns.

Rational conclusions depend on credible arbitors, and fallible humans remain suspect.  The primary issue between terrorists and their targets is one of retailation; and where the grievance is generational, one must look past contemporary ideologies to the historical record and remember that history is usually written by the victors.

 

Back to whether ideas matter or not.

They still do, but not so much as a means of rationalizing violent intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 See, I think this is exactly where our actual disagreement is.  I do care by what reasoning a terrorist decides to initiate violence, just as much as I care about rabies.

 

You cannot fix the problem until you understand it.

The cure for terrorism is similar to the cure for rabies; put the beast down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... ... history is usually written by the victors.

In fact, terrorists usually believe the history written by the losers.

More substantially: if you think that historical interpretation is a major factor in the making of a terrorist, you're conceding the point that ideology/philosophy matters. People hold philosophy/ideology using a certain historical interpretation and a certain understanding of the current world and human nature, as the basis for that philosophy.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cure for terrorism is similar to the cure for rabies; put the beast down.

And then what? 

 

Mankind progressed from hunting and foraging to skyscrapers and space shuttles specifically because we did NOT handle each problem in isolation.  You put the beast down, to be sure, but then you perform an autopsy to find out what caused its rabies in the first place.

Once you understand the problem then you can find a solution; in this case we have to understand what causes terrorism in the first place.

 

And I'm telling you it's an ideological disease, the vaccine for which is Reason.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, terrorists usually believe the history written by the losers.

I've seen enough evidence to concede this point, but in terms of understanding and responding to a clear and present danger, does it really matter how an active terrorist rationalizes their act of murder?  I mean would it change in any way our response to a murderer committed to killing??

 

More substantially: if you think that historical interpretation is a major factor in the making of a terrorist, you're conceding the point that ideology/philosophy matters. People hold philosophy/ideology using a certain historical interpretation and a certain understanding of the current world and human nature, as the basis for that philosophy.

Yes, I concede this point too...  but, again I question the relevance in terms of responding to a clear and present danger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... ... I question the relevance in terms of responding to a clear and present danger.

Depends how clear and present you mean. If someone is already shooting, one has to deal with that.

If you mean something less urgent, then here's something I posted earlier in the thread:

 

One needs to understand all aspects of the reality in order to deal with it. The final actors who plant bombs are acting out of free will, but that does not mean we should not try to explore the ideology itself or the organizations behind it. Ideologies are abstractions, but they are spread via concrete forms. Some mosque somewhere might have a priest who is teaching falsehoods. The priest lives, so he eats... so, someone else pays his bills. You might find that there is a specific organization -- like the Saudi government -- that pays a good fraction of the budget, and has some ability to stop supporting priests who are clearly stepping over the line... ... and so on. Knowledge of the ideology and organizations can help figure out how new members are recruited, and therefore whom to watch, or on whom one should spy. Even if the mafia-boss has kept his own hands clean for decades, he is still the mafia-boss. The police would be wrong to ignore his existence . Each mafia-man on the street chose his lifestyle out of his free will. That does not make the mafia irrelevant. 

 

What one needs to do depends on one's own motives and role. However, the starting point must be to get as complete an understanding of the phenomena as required for one's purpose.

 

Consider this from the perspective of the typical American muslim. He wants to live, work, have a family, and so on. He would rather there were no terrorists who start from his congregation or congregations like his, inspired by what they think is the true Islam. He hates being associated with bombings, and looked at with suspicion every now and then. So, how is he to understand the phenomenon of Islamic terrorists? They're people who do what they do from free will, but is that all there is to it?  Is it true that this is something that a certain percentage of the congregation will do, and there is no way to actually do anything about it, because they have free will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then what? 

 

Mankind progressed from hunting and foraging to skyscrapers and space shuttles specifically because we did NOT handle each problem in isolation.  You put the beast down, to be sure, but then you perform an autopsy to find out what caused its rabies in the first place.

Once you understand the problem then you can find a solution; in this case we have to understand what causes terrorism in the first place.

 

And I'm telling you it's an ideological disease, the vaccine for which is Reason.

It is very refreshing to read an Objectivist-reasoned defense of *not* going in, guns ablaze, and wreaking havoc around the world - with unintended but very damaging consequences for American security.

 

Just because we have the moral justification to drone-bomb a suspected terrorist and kill innocent women and children in the crossfire, doesn't mean we should. We may recognize our own moral obligation to do these things, but I can assure you that nobody in these ravaged countries (Yemen, Pakistan, etc.) do. This is what causes terrorism, and the intoxicating mysticism of religion is used as a tool to draw pawns for the terrorist leaders' rings.

 

Terrorism is an idea, and it cannot be stopped with force. Violence may be prevented by force, but I would argue that the much greater concern is the growing irrationalism of both traditional (Judeo-Christian/Islamic) and modern (environmentalist) mysticisms, combined with the highly wreckless foreign policy the developed world pursues against the undeveloped world which causes anger and misery among already angry and miserable people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends how clear and present you mean. If someone is already shooting, one has to deal with that.

Agreed.  There are two parts to this issue; prevention and treatment.  Once the shooting starts, it doesn't matter why because prevention has failed, and there's only one treatment against a willful aggressor;  put him down.

 

"Is it true that this is something that a certain percentage of the congregation will do, and there is no way to actually do anything about it, because they have free will?" ~ softwareNerd

 

I believe this is the case, otherwise the implication is that precognition is possible.  There is a randomness to choice that no amount of knowledge will overcome.  Understanding patterns may help to anticipate and attempt to prevent future events, but precognition isn't possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Is it true that this is something that a certain percentage of the congregation will do, and there is no way to actually do anything about it, because they have free will?" ~ softwareNerd

 

I believe this is the case, otherwise the implication is that precognition is possible.  There is a randomness to choice that no amount of knowledge will overcome.  Understanding patterns may help to anticipate and attempt to prevent future events, but precognition isn't possible.

However, I assume you will agree that all mosques are not the same. The congregations in some are pretty secular, while others are not.

 

Even in Egypt, the muslim brotherhood was pushed out by secular demonstrators, but these people are muslims. On the stage, supporting the removal of the muslim brotherhood was the head of one of the most influential muslim mosque/school complexes. Clearly, there important ideological differences.

 

If we understand these differences, we can zero in on the ideological fountainheads. Of course, some kid who is from a secular family, can be influenced by a radically religious ideology. Even in many of these cases, they reach for the fountainheads of the ideology. This is how the Russian could warn the U.S. about the Boston bomber.

 

If the radical ideology was not so prevalent in Islam, fewer young folk would reach for it. It is simply a fact of life that very few people come up with their own ideology. Most simply choose from what they find around them. Of these, the majority simply adopt most of the ideology of their parents and their teachers. For instance, there are many positive aspects to the typical ideology of a westerner, particularly an American. However, the primary driver is not that westerners or Americans are born with a more positive emotional make up. The primary driver is that they are born into a culture that has a more positive ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even a more 'secular' bent of Islam would not be comfortable with western ideals, so why do they come 'here'?

 

And why for that matter is it 'ok' for there to be a communist party ticket on federal ballots in the US?! wtf

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because we have the moral justification to drone-bomb a suspected terrorist and kill innocent women and children in the crossfire, doesn't mean we should.

Actually, "we have the moral justification to" and "we should" mean exactly the same thing. Unless of course you divorce Ethics from reality.

Just to clarify: if an action you undertake does not further your safety, then you are not morally justified to undertake it. If it involves killing innocents on top of it all, then it's a crime even.

On the other hand, if an action furthers yours safety, then, as per Objectivist Ethics (according to which men ought to be selfish), you should undertake it.

There is no such thing as "this is morally justified" but "shouldn't be done", in a rational Ethics.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very refreshing to read an Objectivist-reasoned defense of *not* going in, guns ablaze, and wreaking havoc around the world - with unintended but very damaging consequences for American security.

Thank you.

 

Just because we have the moral justification to drone-bomb a suspected terrorist and kill innocent women and children in the crossfire, doesn't mean we should.

I think you should reexamine this, slightly.

 

Since human beings are fallible and, at any given time, have access to only limited information, sometimes it isn't possible to kill the bad guys without harming innocents.  Collateral damage happens.

We should never put innocent lives at risk unless it's absolutely necessary- but sometimes it is necessary.

 

This is what causes terrorism, and the intoxicating mysticism of religion is used as a tool to draw pawns for the terrorist leaders' rings.

This is the only other point I would disagree with.

Our foreign intervention certainly increases tensions and helps to fuel dogmatic propaganda. . . But strictly speaking, the cause of Radical Islamists is Islam.

 

Terrorism is an idea, and it cannot be stopped with force. Violence may be prevented by force, but I would argue that the much greater concern is the growing irrationalism of both traditional (Judeo-Christian/Islamic) and modern (environmentalist) mysticisms

Indeed!  =D

 

Even a more 'secular' bent of Islam would not be comfortable with western ideals, so why do they come 'here'?

Because the more 'secular' Muslims do not grasp America's distinction from all other countries.  They see freedom, prosperity and true happiness, and (much like Conservatives!) think that they can reconcile their religious and political principles.

They do not see the inherent contradiction therein, and thusly cannot understand why they cannot have their cake and eat it too; it's incommunicable to them.

 

My wife has a friend who was raised Muslim and recently, during a philosophical discussion, her devout mother told me that Capitalism is good- because productivity pleases Alleh- and in the very next sentence she began lamenting all of the greed and selfishness in America.

And she could not understand why Altruistic Capitalism is a contradiction-in-terms.

 

And why for that matter is it 'ok' for there to be a communist party ticket on federal ballots in the US?! wtf

Regrettably, because ideas cannot be criminalized.

 

Devil's Advocate:  Volition is not an exception to causality; it is another form of causality.

 

Look at any highway in America, with all of the countless individuals making countless autonomous decisions at any given moment, and find me a single person who is not following the same basic pattern that everyone else is.

If volition is random then why doesn't every N-th minivan intentionally swerve into oncoming traffic?

 

Black box scenario, all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why for that matter is it 'ok' for there to be a communist party ticket on federal ballots in the US?! wtf

It shouldn't be OK. It's OK for there be a communist movement in the US, but it shouldn't be OK for them to try and take over the government. Clearly, communism is unconstitutional, and for a communist to try and take over the government is initiation of force.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1:  Randomness= -(Controllable)

     -Loaded dice are not random dice

2:  IF (volition= random) THEN (volition= noncontrollable)

     -If your self-control is fundamentally unpredictable then your self-control is fundamentally uncontrollable

3:  Uncontrolled= Accidental= INVOLUNTARY

 

C:  If volition is random then volition is nonvolitional

-----

 

The concept of 'random choice' is much like the concepts of 'nonphysical existents' and 'altruistic capitalism'; a self-contradiction.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Muslims should not be allowed to congregate, for the same reasons that communists should not be allowed to run for office in this country. But of course these things could only happen in a society based on , and that followed consistently, rational principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...