Attention! - I merged two topics.
Tell that to the Founding Fathers! Or anyone fighting against evil.
Evil left alone is evil left to conquer.
You missed the point. The point was that the people fighting against evil will triumph.
evil + evil = triump for evil
neutral + evil = triumph for evil
good + evil = triumph for good
I can choose to be evil, “neutral” (= just lazy), or good (= actively virtuous). I know that there are people who choose to be evil, and they will destroy me if I choose to be evil myself, or if I just loaf around doing nothing. But I also know that if I choose to be good and fight evil, I have the best chances for winning.
A person who has chosen to be on the side of the truth has a good reason to be optimistic, because the truth is on his side.
You missed the point. The point was that the people fighting against evil will triumph.
evil + evil = triump for evil
neutral + evil = triumph for evil
good + evil = triumph for good
I understood your point. Your point is lacking a proper context. If there is one good man against 1000 evil men, I wouldn’t give the good man much chance of triumph, especially if both sides were nearly equal in weaponry.
Human force is a factor which needs to be taken into consideration here. Evil men don’t sit around and let good men flourish. They try to conquer and kill you.
You can have all the truth in the world, but if you don’t have the manpower, evil will snuff you out of existence.
Just the phrase “Micheal Moore” or “John Kerry” gets my blood boiling!
Just contemplating those two clowns, I can’t help but smile. If that’s the best the opposition has to offer, we’ve already won.
Just contemplating those two clowns, I can’t help but smile. If that’s the best the opposition has to offer, we’ve already won.
lol, Betsy. Those two clowns wouldn’t be such a threat if it were not for a considerable portion of the American people who actually take them seriously.
But I do see victory in the long run…
I understood your point. Your point is lacking a proper context.
Well, I am talking in the context that is relevant to our lives: the current state of the world. There is plenty of evil and even more mediocrity, but there is also America, a nation built on reason and individual rights that has been weakened by evil ideologies, but has still by far the strongest military–and has an exponentially growing number of Objectivists!
But even being outnumbered 1000 to 1 wouldn’t necessarily mean death. Have you read Anthem?
Capitalism Forever and Mister Swig,
I think the proper way to put it is this: If the good lives, then it will eventually triumph. But there is no way to be sure that it lives, unless we fight for what is good.
“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.”
- H. G. Wells (1866-1946)
If there is one good man against 1000 evil men, I wouldn’t give the good man much chance of triumph, especially if both sides were nearly equal in weaponry.
I would. This is an intellectual battle, a battle of wits, and we are facing unarmed opponents.
As Ragnar observed:
If my fellow men believe that the force of the combined tonnage of their muscles is a practical means to rule me—let them learn the outcome of a contest in which there’s nothing but brute force on one side, and force ruled by a mind, on the other.
Truth is power. As Thoreau said, in one of my favorite quotes, “One man more right than his neighbors is a majority of one.”
If the good lives, then it will eventually triumph. But there is no way to be sure that it lives, unless we fight for what is good.
Exactly!
A true optimist has positive ideas that are true. He is confident he can achieve his goals, because he has chosen goals that he knows are achievable. He has confidence in his ability to create wealth, because he is committed to the means by which man creates wealth: reason. He is confident that, if he should have any failings, he will be able to correct them, because he knows he has a free will that enables him to control his actions. He trusts that he will find rational men with whom he can value for value, because he knows that rationality is possible and trade can be mutually beneficial. He isn’t afraid of being independent and acting in his self-interest, because he knows he doesn’t need to sacrifice others for his survival, nor do others need sacrifices from him for theirs. He recognizes that evil exists, but he is confident that he and other good men can overcome evil–because, as Bearster so brilliantly put it, “in the long run, the truth has to win because it has the advantage of being true.”
That is so succinctly what I wanted to say. Thankyou for such an eloquent description of something I have never been able to explain in words before.
That is so succinctly what I wanted to say. Thankyou for such an eloquent description of something I have never been able to explain in words before.
Glad you liked it.
Well, I am talking in the context that is relevant to our lives: the current state of the world …
My context is: the requirements for survival. Having reason is not enough, because reason has a mortal enemy, which is force.
Force is banned from free societies, because it is the only thing a human can use to utterly defeat reason. You can have all the reason in the world, but someone can still come up and cut off your head or demand taxes under the threat of imprisonment.
In this context, what is relevant to estimating the future? Well, I think it is relevant how successfully we are stopping the spread of the force-initiators. And if you look around, I don’t think you’ll like what you see. But that is another argument.
In a semi-free society, also relevant is how successfully and quickly are we spreading reason and freedom. If you look around, I think this is a toss-up. But that is also another argument. I certainly wouldn’t say that we have an “exponentially” growing number of Objectivists. What statistics are you using to back up that statement?
Besides, we do not need an exponentially growing number of Objectivists to change the culture. We need a strong and powerful minority well-placed in certain segments of society, with a focus on Academia, where fundamental ideas are disseminated.
But we need to face the fact that religion is trying to take over Academia, too. We may need more than brains to win this war, because religion has no qualms about using force to defeat reason.
My context is: the requirements for survival.
Survival, but when and where? It’s one thing to survive when you are alone with a hungry lion, another thing to survive in the Dark Ages, and yet another thing to survive in twenty-first-century America.
Having reason is not enough, because reason has a mortal enemy, which is force.
My point is exactly that reason, when exercised to its full extent and backed by a sufficient capability for retaliatory force, is more powerful than force.
You can have all the reason in the world, but someone can still come up and cut off your head or demand taxes under the threat of imprisonment.
You can have all the aggressivity in the world, but someone can still come up and design a more powerful weapon than yours. Without reason, man has only his bare hands to fight with–not very useful in a world of machine guns, RPGs, stealth fighters, and nukes.
Well, I think it is relevant how successfully we are stopping the spread of the force-initiators. And if you look around, I don’t think you’ll like what you see.
Out of 100 human interactions you see, how many are forceful and how many are voluntary? How many people have terrorists killed on U.S. soil since 9/12/01? How many do you think they intended to kill?
I don’t say I love what I see, but I am not worried about my survival (pending the outcome of this year’s election, anyway).
I certainly wouldn’t say that we have an “exponentially” growing number of Objectivists. What statistics are you using to back up that statement?
I didn’t intend that as a precise statement, but I do think that Objectivism is spreading. Ayn Rand’s books have sold millions of copies, there are plenty of Objectivist websites on the Internet, and look at the growth of this forum! If every 100 Objectivists recruit N new Objectivists, the growth curve will be (1+N/100)^t, which is an exponential curve.
Besides, we do not need an exponentially growing number of Objectivists to change the culture. We need a strong and powerful minority well-placed in certain segments of society, with a focus on Academia, where fundamental ideas are disseminated.
OK, perhaps I should have said “people sympathetic to Objectivism” instead of “Objectivists.”
The good is the only thing that can acheive anything. Even in a dictatorship, the evil has to rely on the good: the thinkers and acheivers and builders (alive and dead).
While the evil often feeds on the carcases of the good, there is a bigger danger. The biggest danger is when good and evil reside in the same individual. As long as Bill Gates produces great stuff, and thinks he has to “give some of it back”, the evil in him feasts off the good in him.
It is not the mullahs of the world who are leading it to perdition, it is the men of compartmentalized minds. We must fight Bin Laden, but that is easy. The tough fight is the one against George Soros.
Out of 100 human interactions you see, how many are forceful and how many are voluntary?
I’d guess half or more are forceful. Every time you buy something, the government forces the seller to charge you taxes. That is force. And we live with it every day, not thinking twice about it.
And that doesn’t even include all the other things that government forces people to do on a daily basis. But if you consider all the economic transactions in this country, nearly every single one, in some direct or indirect manner, involves an element of government force upon the citizenry.
I won’t nitpick your other arguments. I think force is the essential issue here.
But we need to face the fact that religion is trying to take over Academia, too.
They haven’t got a prayer. :dough:
We may need more than brains to win this war, because religion has no qualms about using force to defeat reason.
It isn’t the Religious Right that is staging sit-ins, trashing classrooms, shouting down speakers, and threating opponents with violence. It’s the New Left and the Environmentalists.
This is an intellectual battle, a battle of wits, and we are facing unarmed opponents.
While I agree with some interpretations of this, I would caution against any idea that the opposition are generally stupid or evil. Our strongest opposition on the “right” and the “left” are not the talking hjeads one sees on TV. They are the people who are very right about many things, and very honest about many things, and yet disagree with us. Like compartmentalized minds, the good and the bad are mixed in these individuals. The good “subsidizes” the evil.
My favorite left-winger is Christoipher Hitchens, who writes in Vanity Fair. A google search will bring up his articles. Read a sampling and decide just how witless the opposition is.
Get real folks!
My favorite left-winger is Christopher Hitchens, who writes in Vanity Fair.
Hitchens once debated against Harry Binswanger and John Ridpath and has had a healthy respect for Objectivists ever since. Also another Socialist who debated Objectivists, Canadian Bob Rae, has abandoned many of his socialist ideals and turned toward the Right.
Hitchens once debated against Harry Binswanger and John Ridpath and has had a healthy respect for Objectivists ever since. Also another Socialist who debated Objectivists, Canadian Bob Rae, has abandoned many of his socialist ideals and turned toward the Right.
Really? I’d like to read more about this. I hadn’t heard that either fellow had much respect for Objectivists before.
It isn’t the Religious Right that is staging sit-ins, trashing classrooms, shouting down speakers, and threating opponents with violence. It’s the New Left and the Environmentalists.
I wasn’t equating “religion” with the Religious Right. Religion manifests itself in many forms, including radical environmentalism. It just so happens that the Christians are in power now.