Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Recommended Posts

The philosophy has its own non-contradictory fail-safe built-in. Nice wrap-up.

On 5/12/2021 at 8:53 PM, whYNOT said:

(Certainly, for example, the more mature Objectivists will resent being berated for their political choices)

As for the berating, The Romantic Manifesto offers this with regard to art.

An artist reveals his naked soul in his work—and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it.

There may be a lessor parallel in politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

William and Scott: A contribution to get the ball rolling. Harking back to earlier days, and how much has changed and hasn't. One could start at the 25min mark if time-constrained.  

I firmly believe this is because Rand was frequently irrational about personal relationships, and her closest professional associates emulated this. The consequences were significant, not just a matte

I disagree with this: Objectivism is closed and nobody can add to it. Keeping it closed protects it from people who would misrepresent it. It means that if somebody wants to know about Objectivis

On 5/14/2021 at 6:27 AM, dream_weaver said:
On 5/12/2021 at 7:53 PM, whYNOT said:

(Certainly, for example, the more mature Objectivists will resent being berated for their political choices)

As for the berating, The Romantic Manifesto offers this with regard to art.

An artist reveals his naked soul in his work—and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it.

There may be a lessor parallel in politics.

The reasons for a choice in politics are of a fundamentally different nature from the reasons for a choice in art.  In particular, in politics it is appropriate to understand the reasons conceptually before making a choice, and the reasons can be important to consider in evaluating the choice.

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

The reasons for a choice in politics are of a fundamentally different nature from the reasons for a choice in art.

Agreed.

7 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

In particular, in politics it is appropriate to understand the reasons conceptually before making a choice, and the reasons can be important to consider in evaluating the choice.

The parallel is in coming to conceptual agreement. Individuals often differ in what they consider most important. The politicians select the aspects they consider most important. The constituents pick the candidate they like best according to how they resonate with their notions, or chose to dicker about what is wrong with side they disagree with. 

The constituents like the candidate that paints a picture that 'mirrors' the political landscape they would like to see materialize. 

Conversely, the constituents dislike the candidate that portrays a political landscape they consider less than desirable.

This is analogous politically, albeit not a direct parallel from the aesthetic considerations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2021 at 6:04 AM, dream_weaver said:

This is analogous politically, albeit not a direct parallel from the aesthetic considerations.

Analogous, okay. A "naked soul" will respond with its pre-conceptual, subconscious "sense of life" (that sort of gut-level feeling) to the portrayal and implicit evaluation of existence, in a work of art - which is hardly the manner to make critical, political decisions.

To make those you'd agree, takes the totality of one's knowledge, not simply this candidate's personality v. that one, but mainly an existential and predictive view of what political dispensation ("landscape", nice) will follow with each: as always - which dispensation leads to greater, or lesser freedom. IOW, one's "metaphysical value-judgment" takes precedence over one's sensibilities about a person. (etc.)

As you raised the art-analogy, as example I'll remind that there was quite a fuss made at the time over Rand's admiration for a certain composer, causing Objectivists, unobjectively, to self-censor their liking for other composers. And on another tack, could anyone have foreseen how taken Rand would be with the Salvador Dali picture depicting a man on a cross? (Mysticism! Sacrifice!) That brilliant painting plainly signified to her (now does for me) more than the sum of its parts, it is actually an heroic representation. That showed me one cannot predict the working of a conceptual genius' mind, the choices they'd make in art (or political candidates, etc. ).  

That's by the way. Simply, there is no place for authoritarianism in and about Objectivism. A conceptual mind is a volitional process under development, not a fixed destination - other minds' contents will constantly be at a different stage to one's own. But theirs and one's independent judgment deserves respect even/especially when one thinks someone hasn't the full "picture" in mind and is in error. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott and I interviewed James Valliant on a wide range of subjects. We talked for 3.5 hours. The content is split into three parts. I hope you enjoy and subscribe to our channel.

In part 1 we learn about Valliant's introduction to Objectivism, and we talk about the split between Rand and the Brandens.

Part 2 focuses on Valliant's history in the Objectivist movement and then we discuss Rand's attitude toward conservatives (33:17).

Finally part 3 covers four different topics: immigration (0:00), memory (9:01), the Derek Chauvin trial (24:20), and Valliant's book Creating Christ (30:54).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Finally part 3 covers four different topics: immigration (0:00), memory (9:01), the Derek Chauvin trial (24:20), and Valliant's book Creating Christ (30:54).

What is the role of Democracy in a Republic?

As in should the (non violent) communist also get a vote?

Swig mentions: "Democratic overthrow of rights"

For one thing, if rights can be overthrown by a vote, then they are not treated as rights. So there is a far deeper problem.

The idea that socialist immigrants should be prevented from entering the US "just because they don't like the rich", is ridiculous. People are running away from oppression. They know it when they see it. But the ultimate question is about rights. What right do we as citizens have in preventing "certain" others from entering?

Democracy seems to be a failsafe system. When things really get bad and most people see and feel it, they will vote against it. It also means that with lack of education or manipulation, some freedoms can be eroded, temporarily, until things get bad and people vote the authoritarianism out. But that requires a democratic process that functions at all times.

As far as the efficacy of Democracy (limited by rights) goes, isn't nonviolent change our fundamental interest? Hasn't voting been the counter against "use of force" to get political change?

The vetting of people "based on their ideas" in a free society is a contradiction. Then they are not free. Similar to what goes on in China or Iran or even Putin's Russia, where candidates are not allowed to run because they were vetted by the ruling council.

The idea of vetting people based on ideology is in fact a call for authoritarianism. (checking for disease or criminal background is a different matter)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2021 at 10:57 AM, Easy Truth said:

What is the role of Democracy in a Republic?

To elect representatives.

On 5/21/2021 at 10:57 AM, Easy Truth said:

As in should the (non violent) communist also get a vote?

The "non-violent communist," as in the communist who isn't presently confiscating your property for the socialization of the nation?

On 5/21/2021 at 10:57 AM, Easy Truth said:

if rights can be overthrown by a vote, then they are not treated as rights. So there is a far deeper problem.

You still need to address the immediate problem if you're ever going to solve the deeper problem. If your arm is bleeding, you still apply a tourniquet even though you ultimately need stitches to heal the wound.

On 5/21/2021 at 10:57 AM, Easy Truth said:

What right do we as citizens have in preventing "certain" others from entering?

We have an absolute right to control the border through reasonable, objective laws and policing. In times of war we might even need to shut down the border completely.

On 5/21/2021 at 10:57 AM, Easy Truth said:

Democracy seems to be a failsafe system. When things really get bad and most people see and feel it, they will vote against it.

That's not how it works historically. People vote in the bad guys, and then we have to fight a war (or apply economic or political pressure) to remove them from power.

On 5/21/2021 at 10:57 AM, Easy Truth said:

Hasn't voting been the counter against "use of force" to get political change?

"Political change" is not inherently good. What you're voting for matters. And if you're voting for evil, retaliatory force might be justified to stop it. Voting is not a sanctified process that must always be respected. It's a weapon in the ongoing political battle. And it can be used for evil.

On 5/21/2021 at 10:57 AM, Easy Truth said:

The vetting of people "based on their ideas" in a free society is a contradiction. Then they are not free.

If you reject freedom and advocate against it, then you don't deserve a free society based on individual rights. Freedom doesn't mean we have to tolerate those who seek to destroy our freedom. It means we have the freedom to protect ourselves from such people. We have the freedom to stop them at the border, the freedom to deny their application for citizenship. Really, this is a debate over the meaning of "freedom" and "rights," for which there are plenty of threads in the Politics section.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Freedom doesn't mean we have to tolerate those who seek to destroy our freedom. It means we have the freedom to protect ourselves from such people.

Unfortunately this line of reasoning is used to silence conservatives on Facebook and Twitter. And how has that worked out?

Rightful freedom, in fact, means tolerating those who are not a threat.

There is a difference between a person who will use force to achieve their goals vs. a person that talks about it. If they have a criminal background, a background of use of force, we are perfectly justified in inconveniencing them.

There is no denying that we have a right to self defense. The question is what are the boundaries? Why stop at the border if we want to defend our selves, why not go into other countries and take the so called threats out?

What constitutes a threat of force? Is a person who admires Marx automatically a threat? Or an adherent of Islam? Or someone who has had multiple abortions?

4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Really, this is a debate over the meaning of "freedom" and "rights," for which there are plenty of threads in the Politics section.

Then why did you do a podcast about the subject?

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

There is a difference between a person who will use force to achieve their goals vs. a person that talks about it.

Kind of like the difference between someone who rapes your wife versus someone who merely threatens to do it?

19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

There is no denying that we have a right to self defense. The question is what are the boundaries?

You do what's necessary to defend yourself. In this case I think screening for socialist advocates is sufficient, in addition to the more common checks. And I'm talking about immigration, not visitation. If some socialist is visiting his grandma, that's not a huge concern. Just make sure he leaves when his time is up.

19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Why stop at the border if we want to defend our selves, why not go into other countries and take the so called threats out?

Socialist citizens of other countries don't vote in our elections and they don't run for political offices here, so they aren't threats.

19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

What constitutes a threat of force?

https://www.dsausa.org/

19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Is a person who admires Marx automatically a threat? Or an adherent of Islam? Or someone who has had multiple abortions?

No, I'm talking about advocates of socialism, though there might be a case against advocates of aspects of sharia law. Someone who's had abortions isn't a threat to anyone but their own fetuses. Not exactly a political issue. 

19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
On 5/23/2021 at 8:07 AM, MisterSwig said:

Really, this is a debate over the meaning of "freedom" and "rights," for which there are plenty of threads in the Politics section.

Then why did you do a podcast about the subject?

I did an interview of Valliant. Immigration was a small part of the interview. I'm saying there are better threads on this forum where we discussed the deeper, conceptual issues of this debate.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

There is a difference between a person who will use force to achieve their goals vs. a person that talks about it.

Kind of like the difference between someone who rapes your wife versus someone who merely threatens to do it?

How about a person who argues abstractly that rape should be legal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2021 at 9:17 AM, Doug Morris said:

How about a person who argues abstractly that rape should be legal?

That's bad, but I don't think there is a pro-rape movement that threatens the rights of Americans. I wouldn't expend resources looking for such people, but if it comes up on someone's application or background check, I don't suppose they'd be granted citizenship, even by current standards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this episode I talk to Scott about his theory on the momentum of ideas in society and the problem of moral equivalence. We also touch on his view that life extension could be a unifying purpose for the liberty movement.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

In this episode we interviewed Stephen Hicks about topics related to postmodernism and the left. Near the end I ask him about postmodernism's use of weaponized rhetoric, which is one of the more evil aspects of the philosophy.

 

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...