Galt would have refused Conservatives from the Gulch just like he would have refused Liberals
Posted by JohnConnor352 8 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.
The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.
Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”
This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
For now I'll give you this, self-interest is the cornerstone of Christianity. How? Salvation, Heaven, is entirely selfish.
I will write out an answer though and post later.
I will tackle somethning abut religion and secular.
People who are afraid of the dark for no given reason are very often drawn to religion.
People who are afraid of the dark because they no damn well what evil lurks in the minds of man may not be drawn to religion as such.
People who choose to join a secular church or group an spend their time quaking at the thought of the group not existing are afraid of the day and the night they are called Secular progressives but they really just begging to be told what to do how to think.
Just my observation .....My affliction is I am not afraid of the dark. It comes in handy in target rich environments.
The Christ figure is held up to be the most ideal form of humanity, and what we should all strive to emulate. However, we are all flawed and lesser than Him, so in order to save our eternal souls, he sacrificed himself for inferior humans. It is the most absolute and complete example of altruism imaginable. Altruism is not "generosity" but the idea that if one has any value greater than another, the only moral choice is to give up your value to that other. It is completely antithetical to reason and logic... That one's need can impose a moral mortgage on another. Objectivism, being a rationally derived philosophy, concludes that our ethics do not come from divine providence, but are logically deduced from the laws of reality. Many rational values, such as self-interest, conflict with the Judeo-Christian ethic. "It is easier for a camel to make it through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven..." Sacrifice is a value in Christianity and is a vice in Objectivism.
The reason I bring this up is to ask one crucial question. If God exists, and he created us, then why would he give us reason and logic if the conclusions we draw about ethics while using those basic tools of survival contradict what he dictated as our morals? The only two conclusions one can draw from this contradiction are either that reason is not correct and is a completely arbitrary and therefore useless tool, or that God's laws are incorrect. If you believe both can be true you are violating the very nature of existence, or the law of non-contradiction.
I'm not proselytizing, mind you, just asking questions.
we might note that there are "conservatives" who
are "cleaner" than your explanation, who choose to
use the label in a gentle way. . my wife is one. -- j
.
I don't obey an "alleged" god who's existence can not be proven and advocate no such thing. All I will say is that just because you have not found something doesn't prevent someone else from doing so.
"If so, which god should we obey?"
That is the real question, isn't it? The question is all about which principles one is going to adopt and thereby govern one's life with. The embodiment of any religion or philosophy is their "god". Liberals worship themselves as their own gods. Environmentalists worship trees and nature and such (which is absurd to me). Some worship money and hold as their gods the rich. Some worship power and worship politicians, kings, and despots. Some people worship athletes, others entertainers. You pick something out there and there is likely to be someone who worships it.
And that brings us to an interesting question: what exactly is worship? Is it actually taking orders? I don't see it that way. Worship is emulation. "Imitation is the greatest form of flattery" or something like that. Children literally worship (emulate) their parents. As they mature, they then have to choose which of the principles their parents taught them they want to continue to practice. And so again it all comes back to principles - enduring principles.
You see, the corollary to your question is how long it is applicable. As I pointed out above, a belief in the Judeo-Christian God comes with a belief in continued existence after death. Hindus are another matter entirely, as are Buddhists. That's a big deal when selecting a philosophy or religion. Those who are focused on only the short-term tend to focus on outcomes geared around immediate gratification. Those focused on long-term outcomes tend to be more willing to treat decisions as investments. It's all in the eventual outcome.
Hear hear
Well said, indeed.
Regards,
O.A.
I understand. I do not wish to dance to either one of their tunes. Dance or not, they still force me to pay the piper. :)
Respectfully,
O.A.
Rand was just a person with her own view on life. While I agree with much of what she has to say, she's quite inspirational in many way, she is not entirely right on everything. I define my own philosophy on life and she has helped validate large portions of my philosophy.
I never say "God says" to validate my position because doing so productive to conversation or learning (I'm just not that kind of Christian). I also don't buy into "Rand says" for the very same reason.
Any religion, except maybe islam, is a societal framework, an social club with significance if you would, that resides beneath government to provide, at least in this nation, a personal moral foundation so the Constitution do what its intended - limit government.
Indeed. That is what a traditional conservative was. They tried to preserve the Constitution. I am afraid I have read too many old books that used definitions of these words that are opposite of the meanings we have had to accept for many decades now.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Yes. And, they are for the most part, today's accepted definitions. They were not always so. There was a time early in our nation's history when being a liberal had a much more "libertarian" connotation. It is also true that there was a time when being a"conservative" meant adhering strictly to small government, Constitutional principles.
It is important to be clear, making sure we are on the same page, yet see how the language has been absconded over time. There are still some people (mostly old timers) on each side that see themselves that way.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Yes. I agree. I just find the "liberals" more offensive because they don't even put up the pretense of adherence to most constitutional principles as written. And I still maintain they have been the worst offenders when it comes to my prosperity. It does come down to the rate at which our free markets and capitalism is obliterated by either group. The end is the same. One may choose their poison. Pull the bandage slowly or rip it off. I would like a third alternative. Remove each group from power; make these labels irrelevant, but first we must change the philosophy of most of the nation. No one said it would be easy. Like K is fond of saying,.we have the world to win.
Regards,
O.A.
The rest stems from that one correction.
The sentence that which disassociates or I assume associates, one with ....whomever.
Same answer my brain and the ability to think and reason.
AR's essential contribution was to develop and elucidate a rationally derived morality for freedom. Politics and political belief could not have existed in the Gulch.
edit: for spelling correction
I respect those who have faith, to the extent that I do not join online religious forums and tell them that their philosophical and moral views are wrong because they cannot prove that their god or gods exist.
The Bushes actually fit the philosophical definition of conservativism perfectly.
All it needs is a pre PC or earlier dictionary to determine if those claiming conservative or liberal are or are not fictionary. That leaves all the politicians out in the cold.
Rand explains it well.
"Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used."
Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand
Playboy, March 1964
Last I checked I never had to attend a church, volunteer my time, give money, proselytize, live in a specific location with certain people, or eat certain foods to have Christian faith. Thats doesn't sound like collectivism, it sounds like free will and a sense of community.
Load more comments...