A bit of concern about recent discussions on the Gulch.
As a Conservative who appreciates and frequents this site I often look at the postings and wonder where they apply to Objectivism. I post my fair share of politically charged items here for discussion. But when I do there is a firm Conservative reason that applies to each article which offers the possibility for me to present my belief that Conservatism and Objectivism are very nearly one in the same.
I've noticed that recent postings on the Gulch have been related to world events that have somewhat blurred the focus of the objectivist discussion, in my opinion this is a travesty. I've resolved the matter by concluding that "world events" or even "national events" really can't be properly discussed as objectivist topics because Objectivism relates to the individual and the individuals pursuit of his/her own satisfaction in his/her own life. Rightly so, in Objectivism the individual is paramount and individuals pursuing their own interests are the only way a truly prosperous and free society can emerge. FYI, this in my life-philosophy is American Conservatism, nothing less.
I can see where local and national topics can be directly relevant to Objectivists. Global politics can only be pointed to as a harbinger of what could be if we, the American people, allow our nation to slip into the same decrepit mire that has enslaved so many nations over the centuries. But neither subject, national or global, has any direct (immediate) impact on ones day-to-day personal pursuits so how does it apply? Why should it be discussed on the Gulch?
For my own edification, I've rationalized that the United States of America, or any country or state for that matter, are in themselves pseudo-entities in a global/national society. The foundation of this thought stems from the understanding that the foundation of any society, be it a village or a town, a city or a county, or a state or a country, is nothing more than a collection of relatively like minded people who have agreed (or been born into) a set of laws they willfully agree to abide by. In doing so, their individual satisfaction and prosperity are now tied to the environment in which they live. In such societies, and all societies are all like this, the collectivist decisions of the group can destroy individual freedoms if the body of individuals not careful.
Our Founding Fathers were "that careful" in establishing the charter for this Nation. Objectively, should we not be focusing our efforts introducing discussion topics that ALWAYS cultivate the Objectivist viewpoint to those who visit this site? Is not the only way to restore this country by appealing to the profound truths that Objectivism offers to the individual? Will not the addition of millions of THINKING human beings in American society negate and even reverse the active munching of our liberties by the moochers cultivated by the Great Orifice and his miniOns?
Galt's Gulch is far more significant than any current events website - there are literally millions of them where people can flame all they like. Objectivism, regardless of the topic being posted, should ultimately be the core of any discussion in any thread on the Gulch. After all, Objectivism is the reason why all of us came to this website (even the freedom hating trolls, those desiring to proselytize, or those, like me, hoping to find an audience for his/her novels).
My 2 bits.
I've noticed that recent postings on the Gulch have been related to world events that have somewhat blurred the focus of the objectivist discussion, in my opinion this is a travesty. I've resolved the matter by concluding that "world events" or even "national events" really can't be properly discussed as objectivist topics because Objectivism relates to the individual and the individuals pursuit of his/her own satisfaction in his/her own life. Rightly so, in Objectivism the individual is paramount and individuals pursuing their own interests are the only way a truly prosperous and free society can emerge. FYI, this in my life-philosophy is American Conservatism, nothing less.
I can see where local and national topics can be directly relevant to Objectivists. Global politics can only be pointed to as a harbinger of what could be if we, the American people, allow our nation to slip into the same decrepit mire that has enslaved so many nations over the centuries. But neither subject, national or global, has any direct (immediate) impact on ones day-to-day personal pursuits so how does it apply? Why should it be discussed on the Gulch?
For my own edification, I've rationalized that the United States of America, or any country or state for that matter, are in themselves pseudo-entities in a global/national society. The foundation of this thought stems from the understanding that the foundation of any society, be it a village or a town, a city or a county, or a state or a country, is nothing more than a collection of relatively like minded people who have agreed (or been born into) a set of laws they willfully agree to abide by. In doing so, their individual satisfaction and prosperity are now tied to the environment in which they live. In such societies, and all societies are all like this, the collectivist decisions of the group can destroy individual freedoms if the body of individuals not careful.
Our Founding Fathers were "that careful" in establishing the charter for this Nation. Objectively, should we not be focusing our efforts introducing discussion topics that ALWAYS cultivate the Objectivist viewpoint to those who visit this site? Is not the only way to restore this country by appealing to the profound truths that Objectivism offers to the individual? Will not the addition of millions of THINKING human beings in American society negate and even reverse the active munching of our liberties by the moochers cultivated by the Great Orifice and his miniOns?
Galt's Gulch is far more significant than any current events website - there are literally millions of them where people can flame all they like. Objectivism, regardless of the topic being posted, should ultimately be the core of any discussion in any thread on the Gulch. After all, Objectivism is the reason why all of us came to this website (even the freedom hating trolls, those desiring to proselytize, or those, like me, hoping to find an audience for his/her novels).
My 2 bits.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
How did I show that "those rights are not obvious or well understood."
Trial by jury is a procedural right. It is not a natural right. Why would you bring that up?
Owning firearms is a derivative of the right to self-defense and You own yourself. Individuals owned cannons during the Revolutionary War. Just because one can make a case that something could be used for evil, does not allow one to decide another individual cannot own it. In Common Law, this is recognized under the maxim that one is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Hey, where ya been? Thanks for joining in the discussion.
I posted a review of David Harriman's _Logical Leap_ here in the Gulch and it drew little interest.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/90...
Similarly, Harry Binswanger has a new book out on epistemology, again with little interest here:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/42...
But even politics draws little philosophical interest. khalling started a discussion on why voting is not a right http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/51...
The comments did not get very deep into analysis. Maybe she just convinced everyone. But certainly it did not lead to any deeper discussion of the wider issues. See the comment from LetsShrug about "natural rights" and "individual rights." The statements are easy enough accept, especially from a conservative viewpoint, but Objectivism is NOT a natural rights philosophy. (That fact is well known to mature students of Objectivism.)
It is true that by our nature in order to live in society, we must have rights. But as khalling has shown, what those rights are is not obvious or well understood.
Trial by jury is another of those so-called natural rights that are integral to the American political tradition but which are merely custom and not objectively required by "man qua man." I put the so-called right to own firearms in the same category of arguable privileges. A convicted felon still has the right to judicial review or freedom of religion, but does not have a right to own a gun.
Those are example of conservative political issues that float about without philosophical grounding. As such they are examples of why conservativism is not at all "almost like Objectivism."
I agree with your second point.
To your last statement, rational self interest is about an Ethics of man qua man-your last statement is kind of interesting, but along that line, perhaps I should study witchcraft?
My whole point is: no matter how wide we cast the net - be that the missing 747, O's embarrassing posture on the global stage or the 4.7 earthquake in LA this morning, there should always be some objectivist tie in - no matter how slight. As for religion, I see no conflict. Self interest can dictate covering all your bases just in case. :)
Most of those who see the film will never read anything Ayn Rand wrote and the movie will neither set them on the path to becoming Objectivists or evenn visiting sites like this one.
This site is not designed for any topic, including what some would regard as the "most important topics" (regarding the philosophy of Objectivism) to stay at the top for very long. A new comment on an old topic will be seen by those few who peviously commented on the topic when it was "new" or "hot" (unlike some internet forums where a new comment will bring the topic back to the top of the current list).
A good example of the latter is www.baexpats.org. I can make a comment )reply) to any post ever made in the forums and it will appear instantly at the top of the "latest posts" on the home page.
This is how one of the threads I started in 2010 has had almost 700 replies and over 65,000 views.
but from day one n this site, you knew that this was not an Objectivist site! It took you two months to figure that out? I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts and appreciated when you do "resets" in the conversation with Objectivism. I can understand if this site isn't interesting to you-but this is my issue with Objectivism in general-the outreach kinda sucks....I mean, look at ARI. Not a peep about these movies. not one peep. Yet thousands are learning about AS and AR because they saw the movie. ARI just recently started a nifty looking program for those just learning about Objectivism- maybe they were able to fund it with the royalty checks J. Aglialoro pays LP. hmmm
anyway, I hope you reconsider.
Here in the Gulch I find others whom are free speakers of their individual thoughts and beliefs. The cultivation of objectivism is a necessity. Far too long others have followed a path that leads to more of the same. WE need true change. I believe that there is someone out there that can read the post here and find there is a support group that is far more vast than anyone realized. I can hope that this site is seen for more than the films. Plant a seed and it will grow, of course we need know the fertilizer we are using to ensure strong growth.
Many current events parallel those in the novel, even though it was first published in 1957.
Even the original "Objectivist Newsletter" (published in the 1960's) included a featue titled "From the Horror File" which drew parallels with current events of the '60's with events in the novel.
I never had the impression that purpose of this website was to "cultivate the Objectivist viewpoint" or that "Objectivism, regardless of the topic being posted, should ultimately be the core of any discussion in any thread on the Gulch."
I thought it was about promoting the films, and I personally believe that those who see today's news as an exemplification of Rand's vision (including me) are making a positive contribution to this site.
The producers of the films may or may not be Objecivists. It doesn't matter. If this website enlarges the audience for their films it will have achieved its purpose.
I would sure hope this site will still active (even more so) after part III is released. Aren't we all on the same mission on one level or another in the gulch? (trolls excluded of course).
Maybe I missed your point. ?
I daresay the purpose of the film is to make money and it doesn't matter if the producers, writers, directors, or actors understand the philophosy of Objectivism or embrace its principles.
I hope they do..for my own selfich reasons. I believe I will enjoy the finish product much more if they do and, yes, it may "bring about the philosophy" to some degree, but it will take more than a movie which will be described by some critics as the story of the "richest and smartest" people turning their backs on society and letting ity crumble into ruin.