Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HB v. AB: Is collectivism the greater evil?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I wouldn't say de facto monopoly but I agree that it's a problem. I don't want to mix up what I've said in other threads or split things up about what I said so far, so if you want to keep talking about it with me, we should stick with the other thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is much more integration (not just coherence, but mutual reinforcement and support) between modern conservatism and Marxism and postmodernism, than there is between Marxism and postmodernism.

People interested in how a leading religious (Jewish) conservative thinks can watch Dennis Prager chat with Craig Biddle. They cover some hard topics and find common ground. I hope more Objectivists g

Has anyone come up with a more precise characterization of who or what is or is not being suppressed than "rightist" or "leftist"?

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I wouldn't say de facto monopoly but I agree that it's a problem. I don't want to mix up what I've said in other threads or split things up about what I said so far, so if you want to keep talking about it with me, we should stick with the other thread.

Long as you understand me, that this is all the same topic.

Collectivism the great(er) evil.

Racism: a sub-set of collectivism, either wielded by the obvious culprits (upholding whites over others) - or if by the so-called "anti-racists" who hold to the identical mystical, determinist - and bigoted - premises (but advancing blacks and browns over whites).

The first can be found among the conservatives, BUT as a minority fringe group unpopular with the majority. The second racist-collectivism is to be found among ALL Leftists, it's defining of them and made a great virtue of.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this overall topic for a while, and I am beginning to think that Leftism is indeed the greater evil. My reasoning might be different from Bernstein's, though. (I read his article but I was never able to watch the debate.)

To review what Peikoff said in OPAR: Objectivism holds that existence has primacy over consciousness, but most philosophies hold the opposite, i.e., that consciousness controls existence. For them, the question becomes one of whose consciousness controls existence, and the classical answers are: God, society, or oneself.

I've posted before that "each variant of the primacy of consciousness has its own political party." (In the USA.) So the Republicans believe that God's consciousness controls existence, the Democrats believe that society controls it, and the Libertarians believe that one's own consciousness controls it.

But the interesting question is, what happens when the facts of reality contradict the primacy of consciousness viewpoint -- when you hold one of these beliefs, and existence is "resisting" you, what do you do?

If your own consciousness controls existence then you'd seek to control existence by changing things in your own mind. As a result, you'd probably be willing to entertain just about any idea, just to see how it affects your reality. If your current ideas don't work, you just keep looking. (This has a superficial similarity to the Objectivist approach -- but it lacks the requirement that your ideas have to conform to reality. Instead it expects that reality shifts and changes according to whatever ideas you hold.)

If God's consciousness controls existence -- and existence resists you -- then too bad: you can't control God. All a religionist can do is "accept God's will," or pray and ask Him to change it.

Religionists are infamous for trying to force others to "accept God's will," and this is why they take it upon themselves to punish sinners and so forth, but they do not believe that this actually changes reality. They merely believe they are demonstrating their loyalty to God by acting on His behalf. (He could as well act on His own, but why wait?)

From an Objectivist perspective, there is a big loophole in a religionist's views: if you can demonstrate that reality is really a certain way, then they will be forced to concede that God must be allowing that, and then they must accept it.

I think this loophole is what provided Aquinas an opening. First, he could demonstrate that man has the capacity for reason. (So God must have allowed that. Why?) Second, he could demonstrate that the behavior of reality (which, for a religionist, is an aspect of the "mysterious" will of God) could actually be determined by reason. Aquinas's conclusion was that God would not have allowed man to possess reason if it were any threat to Him. So the path was open to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

Of course, a religionist may be persuaded to accept reality for the time being, but sometimes they will pray fervently for God to change it, and sometimes they will have so much faith that God is going to change it for them, that they start acting to cash in on the change before God makes it, e.g., "I can print unlimited money without causing inflation because I have some pull with God, and He'll change the laws of economics for me, because I'm His faithful follower -- you'll see!" And in fact the virtue of "faith" encourages such behavior. To believe in God means to believe that God is going to change things before he does. (And then He never does, and disaster ensues, and they shrug and say, well, God's will be done.)

There are also cases where a religionist might think that his knowledge has come directly from God and therefore supersedes reality. However, facts are stubborn things.

But then I come to the Leftists.

If society's consciousness controls existence, then you would seek to control a non-compliant reality by controlling society more. If reality is non-compliant, then it must be because too many people are thinking the wrong way. I think this is why leftists are obsessed with influencing and controlling society, and why their beliefs naturally lead to dictatorship. They have to control the thinking of large numbers of people, because that's how they seek to control reality. And if reality continues to disobey, they tighten the controls on society even more.

Edited by necrovore
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, necrovore said:

But then I come to the Leftists.

If society's consciousness controls existence, then you would seek to control a non-compliant reality by controlling society more. If reality is non-compliant, then it must be because too many people are thinking the wrong way. I think this is why leftists are obsessed with influencing and controlling society, and why their beliefs naturally lead to dictatorship. They have to control the thinking of large numbers of people, because that's how they seek to control reality. And if reality continues to disobey, they tighten the controls on society even more.

Hit the nail squarely. Reality isn't compliant to wishes, God is not compliant to wishes - a society can be forced to comply and obey. Well argued.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, necrovore said:

They have to control the thinking of large numbers of people, because that's how they seek to control reality.

A leftist thinks there is his "truth" and my "truth." If our two "truths" conflict, what do we do? We can't appeal to objective truth. That either doesn't exist or it's beyond our grasp. In the end we must duke it out politically. I'll get my power group to fight his power group.

Religious conservatives can appeal to religious books and objective reality, because to a large degree they still accept that there is only one truth, and that it's knowable through revelation or reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

A leftist thinks there is

The biggest problem here is that I still fail to see examples of actual leftists. It's a floating abstraction. We've talked about actual people who claim to be religious, but no actual people who claim to be leftists. Who should we talk about, Noam Chomsky? If we did, we would know that he doesn't advocate for subjective truth. It would be a different discussion (not to mention that condemning the media machine as an oligarchy of sorts that he talks about is a pretty leftist idea). Or if you think he does advocate for subjective truth, then at least you could show the evidence. And it would be a better discussion because we could say what is wrong with the beliefs of Chomsky and the actual threat he and people like him pose. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

The biggest problem here is that I still fail to see examples of actual leftists.

The most followed man in America (and Biden endorser) says to "always speak your truth." He thanks his fans for "giving me the space to speak my truth." This is pop subjectivism in leftwing politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2021 at 12:34 AM, Doug Morris said:

What proportion of "rightist" posts are being suppressed?

What proportion of Objectivist posts are being suppressed?

Is there an index kept, a record? Until it's publicized in some manner, which has to be the tip of the iceberg of possibly thousands a day, I don't know who is suppressed. How can you see what isn't there any more? Little chance with ARI Oists who are enamored of the tech giants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Don't need to look far to find genuine heroes. She's one I can celebrate and you can keep Bill Gates, MZ, et al.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the point of singing praises to Prager on this forum??

Making a case for conservatism because they explain "unearned guilt" is silly because you go from one hell into another hell of religious guilt.

Kind of like, I now believe white people don't deserve the guilt piled on them. The price the "Judeo Christians" want me to pay is knowing that I was born a sinner and I need to believe in this supernatural fiction ... which I promote now.

Why not sing the praises or Rand who taught about unearned guilt without asking for your sacrifice to God.

She was the greatest champion of unearned guilt attacking nonsensical religious baggage ... including but not limited to altruism.

Prager is not, I repeat, NOT a promoter of self esteem. With him you're going to learn and teach that "you're worthless" alone ... without God.

In other words, the individual is worthless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

What is the point of singing praises to Prager on this forum??

Making a case for conservatism because they explain "unearned guilt" is silly because you go from one hell into another hell of religious guilt.

Kind of like, I now believe white people don't deserve the guilt piled on them. The price the "Judeo Christians" want me to pay is knowing that I was born a sinner and I need to believe in this supernatural fiction ... which I promote now.

Why not sing the praises or Rand who taught about unearned guilt without asking for your sacrifice to God.

She was the greatest champion of unearned guilt attacking nonsensical religious baggage ... including but not limited to altruism.

Prager is not, I repeat, NOT a promoter of self esteem. With him you're going to learn and teach that "you're worthless" alone ... without God.

In other words, the individual is worthless.

The constant error here is assuming that anyone is advocating for religion (and conservatism, for that matter) by searching for an area of commonality with e.g. Prager. The religious are hardly going to be similar to Oists in any sphere but politically and economically.

The choir you are singing to knows all you say, ET.

And no, I don't think the individual is worthless to Judeo-Christians. He/she has a standing, that's for sure, to themselves and to others. Their standard of value is a supernatural one, however.

"Man's life as the standard of value" is an abstraction which I've found has appeal to Christians also. Try it, ask a few.

Aside and primarily, if one accepts that individual rights are the Gold Standard for a society, to Objectivists, HOW possibly can they be brought into action without the endorsement of a majority of a population? Objectivists will not be a majority. Most of the secular Left could not ever accept individual rights. Are you prepared to let go that possibility because of fundamental differences with the religious? Who could? Individual rights with them in accordance with Oists or never going to happen.

And to repeat, Rand's formulation of rights was clearly embracing of all kinds, creeds (etc.) in society. Which is their entire point.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Is there an index kept, a record? Until it's publicized in some manner, which has to be the tip of the iceberg of possibly thousands a day, I don't know who is suppressed. How can you see what isn't there any more? Little chance with ARI Oists who are enamored of the tech giants.

If you think this is important, maybe you should do some experimenting and put it to the test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If you think this is important, maybe you should do some experimenting and put it to the test.

It was you who had asked about the particular "rightest" & "Objectivist" ratios. @whYNOT just suggested a few avenues to vet it out, and pointed out why such a task is likely futile.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If you think this is important, maybe you should do some experimenting and put it to the test.

If you're that concerned I was going to suggest that to you. I'm fairly interested though not absorbed enough to find out. The conclusion seems foregone to me, But just because I've not heard of one 'leftist' pov silenced, and a few dozen 'rightist' which have - does not indicate none have been.

Tester: open two accounts (Im guessing how it works) and enter "Biden's followers are £%$" - and - "Trump's followers are @&%" - set your stop watch and note which gets taken down soonest, neither or both, and apply the test on every media platform.

Report back with your findings. I await with bated breath ;)

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I've not heard of one 'leftist' pov silenced, and a few dozen 'rightist' which have

How are you defining "leftist" and "rightist"?  Where are you hearing about this?

How many Objectivist pov's have you heard of being silenced?

Edited by Doug Morris
Precision
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Has anyone come up with a more precise characterization of who or what is or is not being suppressed than "rightist" or "leftist"?

Besides defining leftist as "bad" and right as "good", there isn't anything. I've still been unable to find people around here wanting to discuss how to think about Leftism. Everything is lumped together into "postmodern woke SWJ neoMarxist CRT Communist socialist Democrat".

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I've still been unable to find people around here wanting to discuss how to think about Leftism.

We've been willing, but you don't like our examples. What do you think of Jordan Peterson's take?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you are that's fine, because really want to get at the nuance that I think really exists among Leftists. I found the discussion earlier with WhyNot - asking him to define leftist in terms of a formal definition under Objectivism - didn't go anywhere. It would be much better if there were reference to specific Leftist intellectuals. 

Although I'm fine with how Peterson analyzes many topics from a psychological angle, I don't think his analysis at all helps with politics. It is not very helpful because also he seems to be talking more about a dimension of authoritarianism when measuring political belief, not much else. Objectivism is relatively nonhierarchical politically speaking (on the low end, not that it's absent) because much of the support for capitalism is that there is no hierarchy whatsoever when it comes to freedom - except the internal operations of the government and that you have ultimate authority over your own property. And morally speaking, although there is some hierarchy in terms of earning what you create, or earning the knowledge you've acquired, "authority" itself is pretty irrelevant, and where we fit into social hierarchy even less important. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Well if you are that's fine, because really want to get at the new ones that I think really exists among Leftists. I found the discussion earlier with WhyNot - asking him to define leftist in terms of a formal definition under Objectivism - didn't go anywhere. It would be much better if there were reference to specific Leftist intellectuals. 

 

Do you think there's no such thing as "leftism"? You can't deny its existence because it hasn't comprehensively been defined.

What distinguishes leftists and leftist thought is usually left undefined, especially by Leftist intellectuals. I think they like it that way. If their full premises, motives and intent were known and held up to reason they'd lose followers.

Observe and deduce from a broad sampling heard and read, and you may find certain distinct characteristics in common.

Concretists, anti-conceptualists, determinists and collectivists (uplifting any 'group' that takes their fancy to be fitting 'victims' of the moment), anti-individualists (to rub in that point), ruled by emotions and feelings, power-lusters, deconstructionists, materialists of the mind and skeptics of reason and value, anti-character (under anti-individualist and anti-volition) altruists, nihilists. Fundamental: primacy of consciousness.

In politics the Utopianism that leftists dream of drives them to socialism, Marxism, environmentalism, a combo many seem to feel should be enforced universally. Therefore, also anti-nationalist, globalists. Finally, they envisage merging nations and races and what-have-you into One (obedient) World. THE collective, for all time. Not forgetting that there is a certain elitism, an aristocracy among them too. At odds with their avowed class-less egalitarianism? Nobody insisted they had to be logical, consistent nor non-contradictory. Enough to start with?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

How are you defining "leftist" and "rightist"?  Where are you hearing about this?

How many Objectivist pov's have you heard of being silenced?

 

On 3/19/2021 at 6:08 AM, whYNOT said:

Report back with your findings. I await with bated breath ;)

First your test results, Professor.

Only one (that I know of) but that points to further controversial content by rational people criticizing the settled Social Narrative, also being squelched. Objectivists are radicals, wait for big technocrats to figure that out.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The only thing I criticize about Jordan Peterson is his biologically-deterministic "hierchicalism". He and his intensity in favor of individual values are admirable otherwise, imo.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
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...