The Greedy Capitalist

I was browsing Google News today, and came across this editorial. The best part:

I feel obligated to point out the fundamental flaws in the Objectivist Club as a forum for discussing ideas.... The Objectivist Club’s constitution states that its mission is "to study, discuss and debate, using reason, the content, validity and application of Objectivism, and to disseminate Objectivist ideas." In contrast, in its constitution, the Philosophy club states that its aim is to host, "events [that] will allow for thought-provoking, respectful discussion with peers and professors in the absence of classrooms, grades, competition, or judgment, for in such a context, people may best develop and clarify their thoughts to themselves and others... Does [the Objectivist Club] sound like a place where a free exchange of ideas occurs without competition or judgment?"

I don’t know about Drexel, but I went to a number of philosophy and agnostic club meetings at A&M. The usual format is usually as such: a speaker, usually a professor, wows the audience with an unintelligible attempt to prove that X is a “social construct” using enough logical calculus to make even a math major cry for mercy. Afterwards, the members (who have no clue what was just said, but feel enlightened already) gather into a circle and utter pronouncements such as “I get physically sick at seeing the suffering of others” (direct quote) at which point all the other members wow and feel even more enlightened. If there are enough upperclassmen who haven’t dropped out yet, the members usually proceed to one of the local bars and proceed to reach new levels of self-actualization with the aid of large volumes of booze, but without the aid of “judgement” or “reason.”

Anti-Islamists vs Islam

Daniel Pipes writes about the Anti-Islamists Muslims “who wish to live modern lives, unencumbered by burqas, fatwas and violent visions of jihad”:

Although a TV journalist and personality, Manji - a practicing Muslim - brings real insight to her subject. "I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists. But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream.

I have a hard time imagining an “Anti-Islamist” version of Islam. Unlike other religions, virtually every nation with a sizable Muslim population has problems with violent fundamentalists who try to impose their dogma on the rest of the population. Fundamentalism is deeply embedded in Islam, historically, politically, and literally. The Q’uran is full of lines like:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah (a tax paid by the heathens)with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Of course, the Christian Bible is also full of lines like:

Anyone who blasphemes the name of God must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

So is violent fundamentalism and Islam inescapably intertwined? Yes – but so every other religion. Because it rests on faith, religion can spread by just one voluntary means: the willing self-abdication of its victim’s mind. Because religion is necessarily detached from reality, it is impossible to compromise or evaluate between two dogmas: one can only choose one or the other “on faith.” When an organized religion comes into conflict with a people who refuse to surrender their mind to it (usually because they have already done so to another faith), forceful conversion by military conquest is the only alternative. Historically, this is how every major organized religion came into power. (There are many peaceful minority religions and sects of course, but their non-violence is the reason why they remain minorities.)

Despite the bloodstained histories of all religions, Islam is the only religion (with the exception of the Marxist and green varieties) that remains violent on a large scale today. Understanding why requires a grasp of the philosophical development of the Western and Eastern worlds. In brief, the discovery of Aristotle by Thomas Aquinas provided the crucial influx of reason into the Western World following the reject of reason by the followers of Ahmed ibn Hanbal in eighth century Persia. From that point on, the Western world thrived and prospered while the Arab world descanted into the depths of fundamentalism, where it largely remains today. As it sank into obscurity, it posed little threat to the West. However, the rejection of reason by Kant and his followers led to the rise of Marxism, and its growing influence in both the West and then the East. Marxist ideology provided the foundation and the ammunition (both material and intellectual) for modern Islamic fundamentalism, and the oil revenues sustain it. Fundamentalist regimes like Iran were not only created with Soviet aid, but the 1979 revolution itself was largerly won with the help of Marxist groups. It was only the more persistent application of mass murder by Ayatollah “Islam is not the opiate of the masses” Khomeini that allowed him to implement his version of socialist slavery rather than the Soviet variety.

“Women In Islam: Oppression or Empowerment?”

This evening, I went to hear “Women In Islam: Oppression or Empowerment?” – a presentation given by the Muslim Students Association. It was part of an “Islam Awareness Week” that was highly promoted by the University. (Coming up next is “Coming Out Week,” organized by the “Gender Issues Education Services.”)
I was interested in hearing what kind of deception and evasion I would hear, and I was not disappointed. I’ll give an overview, and leave it up to you to judge the views presented.

The basic argument went like this: There is a media conspiracy to discredit Islam and secularize American Muslims by portraying Muslim women as oppressed and Islam as promoting violence. Any oppression that may go on in any country is due solely to that country’s culture, and not anything about Islam itself. The sole purpose of a woman covering herself is to prevent men from being overwhelmed by their “animal instincts” and either viewing the woman solely as a sexual object or harassing or raping her. An uncovered woman that is raped or assaulted by a man is to blame for enticing the man’s animal instincts, which he cannot control.

I asked three questions following the talk:
Q: Do women also have animal instincts, or just men?
A: Only men have animal instincts, or only men have urges that they cannot control. Hence, only women have to wear the full body covering.
Q: What is the Muslim view on freedom, and on religion's role in government?
A: “True” freedom is not freedom to act (“run around naked” was the example used) but freedom to think. The only way to be free to think is to worship Allah. Politics cannot exist without a religious basis, and a system of law called Sharia law is prescribed by the Koran.
[Food for thought: Can you think of any countries that enforce(d) Sharia law? Does “freedom to think” have any meaning if one can’t act on one’s thoughts?]
Q: What is the purpose of your life, and how does it relate to your happiness?
A: The sole purpose of my life is to serve Allah. I derive happiness from knowing that I serve Allah well.

The talk was accompanied by a slideshow of Muslim women from various countries, some of them participating in various vocations, some showing off various uh, fashions, and many participating in political protests. One slide I remember showed a woman holding an image of two hands shaking. One hand had the flag of Israel on the sleeve, and the other had the "Muslim world". Copious amounts of blood were coming from the Arab side, and the text said something about “America’s peace offering.” Another slide showed Bush and Blair with a “Wanted: Terrorist Masterminds” title. I made a recording of the talk, and will share it if you want to hear it for yourself, though the quality probably isn’t very good.

In other news, China now allows people to get married without permission from their employer. I suppose the next step would be to give liberty to all -- liberty to think about how much they love to serve China, as opposed to the liberty to publicly call the president a "terrorist mastermind."

How to be a Greedy American

Thanks to Google and MSN for recognizing me as the 3rd most “Greedy American.” If I could go choose to be known by any one moniker, it would be as a “greedy American.” But this got me to thinking: who are the real greedy Americans? (And how can I capitalize on my search engine hits?) What is the essence of being selfish, anyway?

The short answer is simple: a selfish individual places his interests and his life before that of others. But merely choosing to be selfish does not provide any guidance for action. To act on any abstract idea, you must decide how to apply it in concrete situations. Should you (as the common misconception goes) simply do whatever you feel like? Are cheating, lying, and thieving selfish actions? What about caring for other people? To answer these questions (and many others!) and apply them to your life, you must integrate abstract ideas into the rest of your knowledge. As Leonard Peikoff points out in OPAR, one cannot act on any idea outside the context of the rest of his knowledge.

To live a selfish life is to make one’s values a primary. But to be successful in living as a human being, man must life by rational values, not by random whims and desires, but by rationally chosen goals which are true to his nature as a human being. This requires a fully developed moral code based on the values required for man’s survival, such as rationality, productivity, and honesty. In other words, selfishness is not for dummies: it requires an active and constant dedication to being a purposeful, rational, and productive individual.

With this context in mind, who qualifies as the “greediest” American? I think the essence of a selfish individual is the absolute and uncompromising pursuit of his values. The main obstacle the majority of people have in this regard is not that they regard the pursuit of selfish values as wrong, but that they do not have values of their own to begin with. I don’t just mean the second-handed losers who are unable to make anything of their life, but also those individuals who are ostensibly successful and self-interested in their goals, but are unable to take pleasure from them because their philosophy does not allow them to enjoy their success.

I’ve known many such people in my life: by any normal measure, they are excellent students, dedicated to their goals, and envied by their peers. But because they implicitly accept a philosophy denies their life as an end in itself, they are plagued by constant feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and self-degradation. The most common external sign of their inner turmoil is their tendency to have self-destructive, abusive relationships, or an inability to have any relationships of mutual admiration.

For this reason, it is hard to know the moral character of a person merely by looking at his achievements. For example, Bill Gates is unquestionably a successful and passionate individual when it comes to his work – he must be in order to create a company like Microsoft. But just because he lives a productive and materially successful life does not necessarily mean that he has a philosophy that allows him to reap the rewards of his achievements. His true motivation might be an obligation to contribute to society, a need to outdo his peers, or perhaps feelings of inadequacy because he cannot live up to his father’s expectations. Perhaps he became a software designer to live up to social expectation in spite of his true ambitions of being an artist. Without knowing the motivation for his success, we can’t know whether he is able to enjoy it. The fact that he offers excuses (excuses, mind you!) for his success and wastes his wealth away on charities is certainly not a positive sign.

There is another kind of philosophy whose outcome I still don’t know because I’m too young to know anyone who has lived his life by it. It’s the individual who lives by a proper philosophy, but has given up on (usually unknowingly) on philosophy as such because the meaningless void of today’s culture is all he knows. He will usually describe himself as a pragmatist, but only because he does not realize that there exists a name for his morality: rational self-interest. I’ve only known a few such individuals in my life, and they are the ones I want to expose to the ideas of Objectivism. Why? Because I used to be one of them.

Please recycle your scrap metal on someone else's lawn...

There is a new statue in the business school called "life rhythm." I pity the poor bastard whose "life rhythm" is described by this junk heap. This is what they picked to represent business? I can think of some superior alternatives…

A California judge on Friday gave preliminary approval to a landmark settlement under which Microsoft will pay $1.1 billion to settle a class-action suit that claimed it overcharged consumers for Windows.

Hey, California, you're overcharging people on taxes -- where is their settlement?
Microsoft comments:

"Microsoft has offered great products at competitive prices and we believe we would have prevailed in this case," a Microsoft spokesman said in an e-mail message to reporters. "However, we were committed to resolving this matter. This settlement further demonstrates Microsoft's continued efforts to put these conflicts behind us and to focus on the future."

So, theft is wrong in theory, but if we capitulate to crooks this time, they'll leave us alone, right? Right?

"The Ten Commandments vs. America"

Check out Harry Binswanger's editorial The Ten Commandments vs. America. I think Harry’s theme is a good way to point out the contradictions between Christian and American values. That and the quotes on the Religion vs. America page @ ARI. It’s scary how many otherwise intelligent people claim that “America was not founded on a principle of separation of church and state.” (If you read the Monday’s op-ed in the Batt, you know who I’m talking about.)
Btw, the editorial started as a post on the HBL listserv. At $10 a month, the subscription is a bit pricey for a college student like me, but the high quality of the content is hard to beat.

Three Proofs Against the Existence of God

I was feeling argumentative tonight, so I started a debate on God at the TexAgs forum. This post is mostly for my use in some future debate, but check out my arguments if you care to.

Edit: I realized that my arguments have some major flaws. While true, the background knowledge required to understand the concepts involved requires that the reader be an atheist/Objectivist before he reads them. So, I appreciate the compliments, but stand by for a rewritten version designed to respect the silly theist's hierarchy of knowledge.

(1) God is arbitrary.
There is no evidence for a supernatural being with the properties generally ascribed to God. If someone makes an assertion for which there is no evidence either way, the logical thing to do is simply dismiss it, just as I would dismiss the assertion that there is an invisible pink elephant floating over me. If this were the only argument against God, I would not be able to prove that God did not exist -- but you would not be able to prove that he does exist either. Hence the claim must be thrown own as arbitrary.

Comment: The reason there I say that is no evidence for God is NOT that I cannot see him. I have never seen Australia either, or my mind, or anger, or Neptune. The reason there is no evidence for God is that the characteristics ascribed to God contradict the rest of my knowledge about the world, and cannot be integrated with it (for example, I know of no intelligence that has no physical basis, or entity that spans the whole universe)

(2) God has no identity.
Everything that exists in the universe has a particular nature, and only that nature. Things are what they are – with certain properties that have certain characteristics. Every existing thing behaves in a certain way according to its nature. (Law of causality) More fundamentally, the whole notion of something existing means having a certain nature – a particular, limited nature that is one thing and not another. Everything that exists, exists as such. In other words, non-contradiction. Something cannot be two conflicting things at the same time, in the same place, and in the same respect. God is a contradictory concept – he has no nature, no (finite) identity, and no particular causal connection to the rest of the universe. Thus, God is not only an arbitrary, but also a contradictory concept, and thus impossible. You cannot argue for a contradictory concept since the notions of proof, reason, or evidence rest on the validity of logic. (Because just like everything else in the universe, logic also has a particular nature. A is A.)
If God has a particular identity, then at most, he must be an ancient, very powerful robot playing tricks with our fate. I don’t know any theists who would argue that God is a robot. Besides, if RoboGod has to play by the rules as we do, we can beat him.

(3) God is contradictory.
Many of the traits attributed to God are self-contradictory. For example, God is omnipotent, all good, and all knowing, yet evil exists. Also: God is everywhere and nowhere. Also: God loves us and sends us to hell. Also: We have free will, yet we are pre-destined. Also: immortal soul, yet we seem to be created from scratch at birth with no memories (making re-birth pointless) Also: God defines right and wrong, yet is able to change it (same as the making a stone to big to lift thing) Also: God is actually three gods, yet he is one. Also: Man is evil, yet he was saved, yet he really isn’t saved, yet God will probably forgive us anyway. Also: God act by miracles, yet he creates physical laws, so he needs none. Also: God is concerned about our fate, yet he already knows exactly what will happen. Also: Man is in God’s image, yet he is sinful. Also: Religion is supposed to make one happy on earth, yet earthy life is about suffering and sin. Also: God wrote the sole, absolute, and unchanging source of morality, yet his Book is full of contradictions, and things you’d probably say he’d oppose today (such as stoning for adultery). Also: Pride is evil for man in heaven, yet good for man on earth. I could probably think of a few dozen more contradictions, but you get the idea. God isn’t even consistent with himself. Let’s not forget: One should have blind faith in God, yet you are about to attempt to use reason to prove me wrong.

Whos the worst dictator of all time?

Today's blog is a reply to the following question I saw on a local forum: Who is the worst dictator of all time?
My post:
How can you answer this kind of question without first determining what makes someone evil in the first place?
And how can you possibly make such a comparison without some standard by which to judge the moral worth of a person?
So, to determine just how evil a man is, you must first find out what standard of morality one should be judged by in the first place.
Here is what I think:

A good man is one who lives his own life to the fullest and respects the right of others to the same. Conversely, an evil man is one who lives as a parasite on the blood of others by destroying their ability to live as productive individuals, either by stealing the product of their labor, by using violence on them, or by spreading the ideas that lead to their death.

Thus, how evil a man is depends not on how many people he has a chance to kill, but on how consistent he is in making the destruction of others the sole purpose of his life. By this standard, the most evil man is one who is the most consistent and uncompromising in advocating and acting towards the death of others as the primary activity of his life.

Now, a dictator can only be a whim-worshipping and power-mad thug, who is incapable of conceiving his own philosophy, but must borrow and feed off the intellectual climate that previous intellectuals have created in his country for him. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the other brutes in history didn’t create the philosophic view that man has no right to his own life but must live and die for the state -- they merely took advantage of the views already dominant in their societies to grab power and carry out the philosophy of some long-dead academic.

Thus, the most evil men in history are those who created and perfected the view that the purpose of man's life is to blindly follow the commands of the State, as represented by its dictator -- rather than to live for his own life and happiness as the proper moral purpose of his life.

Guns and Abortions: Two Sides of the Same Coin

After going shooting this weekend, I was inspired to write an essay titled Guns and Abortions: Two Sides of the Same Coin. I just finished the first draft, and I'm looking for comments and suggestions. If you were inspired by the essay and want to learn more from groups and individuals that that support the Constitution and don't compromise on principles, I suggest going here and here for gun rights, and here and here for abortion rights. Update: an interesting article on Hitler's disarming of the Jews.

On a related note, Michael Moore's website was hacked yesterday. Here is all the hacked page said:

This message is meant to be apolitical. Mr. Moore, your documentary "Bowling for Columbine" is fictitious, not factual. David Hardy's Truth About Bowling is simply damning. You deliberately deceive your viewers, who are only expecting a slightly biased factual report. Mr. Moore, my personal hope is that you publicly apologize, not for your ideas, but for dubbing your lies the truth. Please see revoketheoscar.com Love always, NHA Crew.

I normally disaprove of hacking, but for I'll make an exception for blatant frauds and liars. According to my sources, this lazy liberal hasn't updated his server software in at least a year.

Lessons from the Matrix

I saw the Matrix sequel recently and found it to be about what I expected: a combination of mediocre philosophy thrown in at random and kick-ass digitized kung-fu (aka wire-fu) scenes. While the original was more interesting in terms of "deep thoughts," both movies raise a great number of interesting philosophical questions that can serve as a good introduction to philosophy to those fazed by the empty void of postmodernism. To help with the process, the Matrix website has a handy philosophy section featuring over a dozen different essays with all sorts of perspectives. Some of them are quite interesting and thought provoking, while others are hopelessly muddled in their own subjectivism. (Ex: "I think that even if I am in a matrix, my world is perfectly real.") I suggest reading the introduction to skip to the most interesting essays.

Anyway, there are several interesting points raised the essays that echo some things I've been arguing for years. One is that morality is as applicable to entities living in the matrix as it is to the flesh and blood variant. Because morality is based on the practical necessities of a rational entity's life, it applies equally to all rational entities, including the vat-enclosed, artificial, and virtual kinds. Check out the essay "Artificial Ethics" on the site for more.

Another interesting issue is brought up by Kevin Warwick in the essay "The Matrix - Our Future?" who ponders the plausibility of humanity ending up in a real-life Matrix. (Dr. Warwick is actually the first ever cyborg, implemented not once, but twice with silicon chips. The second was a neural implant that allowed him to remotely interface with a robot arm over the net, record and play back sensory perceptions, and even communicate emotions to a similar chip implanted in his wife. He is actively working on developing the technology to make telepathy a reality, and at this rate, it may well become a reality in his or my lifetime.) Anyway, I have long shared Dr Warwick's hypothesis, only I take it one step further: I believe that in the long run, the biological human race is doomed. The status quo is inherently unstable, and there are only three possible outcomes in the long run: (a) humanity is destroyed by internal or external factors (b) humanity evolves into non-biological entities or (c) artificially created (but not necessarily intelligent) entities wipe out humanity. This is a philosophical conclusion rather than simply a technological one because it is based on the basic relationship between humanity and technology rather than any particular trend or development. It requires a lengthy explanation, so if you're up to it, go on to read my theory.

Modern Art and Visions of Values

Inspired by Tim's letter to ArtRenewal.com, I wrote a an essay dedicated to the evils of modern art. Here is the intro:

Today's rant is dedicated to the general and overwhelming mediocrity of "modern art". No, "mediocre" is too mild a word. Modern art is horrible! Pathetic! Rubbish! It has about as much artistic value as a sewage dump! No, I still cannot express just how pathetic modern art is. A sewage dump has but one purpose: to store sewage, and it may do it well, but modern art is such a complete failure qua art, that there is no term to describe it other than anti-art, the epitome of what art is not, and should not be.

On Sex and Relationships.

I am well aware that I have very unique, and in fact radical views on just about everything when compared to the rest the world. It is hard enough to find friends who share my views, and even harder to find girls who share enough of my view on life to start a relationship with. Until now, I've never defined just what traits I'd look for in a partner, so I think it's about time I gave the matter some thought.

There are probably about 0.0 people on earth who share my exact views, and even if I did find someone who matched all my philosophy exactly, I'd probably be bored to death becuase we'd have very little to talk about! So, looking for someone who matches my positions and values on everything would clearly be unproductive.

If, on the other hand, I ignored my values when looking for a girl, I would not benefit from a relationship any more than if I had found no one at all. If I relied on my good looks, ambition, and money (hah!), I might be able to get a girl in bed without too much trouble, but it would be an empty victory. Sex is neither an end in itself, nor an act solely of friction and hormones, but should be a celebration of shared values, ideals, and achievements. Sleeping with (or just dating) someone who did not share my values, no matter how attractive, would be like getting a big and shiny trophy without having won or deserved it. It might impress the rest of world, but it would only be a facade hiding a lack of self-confidence or true achievement.

Clearly then, any rational person who thinks of love and sex as more than mere social ritual or instinctive urges needs to have a standard for a potential mate, and in the first post dedicated to my personal life in nine months of blogging, I have decided to do just that by narrowing down the essential traits a person would have to have for me to begin a relationship with them. I would probably narrow the qualifications even more for a life partner, but here are the essentials of the "sense of life" that form my prerequisites to a relationship:

• Gender (sorry guys)
• 
  
• Self-confidence.
• 
  
• An essentially optimistic view of life.
• 
  
• Their own happiness as a major goal in life (as opposed
  to duty)
• 
  
• Ambition for the future.
• 
  
• A passion for something.
• 
  
• Enough intelligence to carry out a serious conversation
  with me.
• 
  

(Looks matter too, of course, but if attractiveness is
hardwired, there is no point setting standards anyway.)

Art

My art gallery is coming along at http://rationalmind.net/art -- not many images are present yet becuase I am working on the technical side...

Memorizing vs. Learning [from a listserv post]

Being inspired by other people's ideas and not having any of your own are two very different things. I have many heroes and sources from which I gain inspiration and material to further my own ideas and actions, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The key difference between the copy-cat and the independent thinker is that the copy-cat is capable of merely reading and memorizing words and phrases. He never develops the critical thinking skills needed to analyze other's ideas and compare them to personal experience and the rest on his knowledge. Rather, he merely memorizes them, stuffing them into an ever-larger closet full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

The errors of such a process becomes obvious when such a person attempts to apply his knowledge to answer a question which involves arranging the ideas he already holds in a new way: because he never learns to relate ideas and concepts together, he is unable to do anything but spit out the same old lines he has memorized word by word.

For example, a student may take a programming class and memorize all the commands of a language and all the functions needed to accomplish certain tasks, but ask him to write a program using the most basic of these commands, and he will be completely helpless unless he has learned the relationships and meanings of the commands and functions. Likewise, many students study arithmetic, geometry, algebra, calculus in their education, but without integrating and learning the meaning and inter-relationships of these subjects, they will be unable to solve the most basic mathematical problems in real life. They will study history not as a chain of causally-linked events and trends, but as unrelated dates and actions, and science not as integrated and related fields, but as abstract, trivial, and independent areas.

It is not surprising then, that such people will view philosophy not as an integrated, and hierarchical structure, but a series of abstract questions, to be solved by logical calculus or left open with a big question mark.

The person who actually learns, rather than merely memorizing is not only able to relate existing knowledge and apply it to new situations, but more importantly, he can critically judge the ideas of his teachers, no matter how well-regarded they may be. Most students take their professor's ideas at their word, either neutrally memorizing material and spiting it back out, or finding something instinctively wrong with ideas (perhaps because their parents, peers, or preacher told them otherwise) but being unable to say just why because the professor's words are just as un-integrated as their previous knowledge. So, they put a question mark on the whole thing, and adopt a general apathy and equivocate all ideas as just "opinions."

This, then is the general stupor in which most we find most people today, and it is the direct result of an educational system that fails to provide students with the critical thinking skills (despite a superficial dedication to it) needed to integrate and evaluate knowledge.