jump to navigation

Gas Prices and the Problem of Evil May 22, 2008

Posted by Resident Egoist in : Culture, Philosophy , comments closed

There’s a man going around the country organizing prayer stations at Gas stations asking God to “deliver us from these high gas prices”. Whatever you think of him, you should credit the man for his novel approach to a rather vexing problem.

Religious people stubbornly lack the ability to recognize that everything about God is one gigantic contradiction. Instead of having anything to do with evil, Diana Hsieh has undeniable proof that high prices, being part of God’s plan and will, are the greatest good we could ever wish for. It goes as follows:

…as an omniscient being, God must be already perfectly aware of the high price of gas. As an omnipotent being, he must be capable of lowering gas prices. Since he’s all-benevolent, he wouldn’t allow gas prices to remain as they are if that was an evil. Ergo, high gas prices must be all for the best.

Can’t argue with that, can you? This, in fact, has opened my eyes to the fact that for anyone who believes in an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful and all-[insert favorite attribute here] deity, it is impossible to logically admit in the existence of any kind of evil since everything is part of God’s will, which is all-good.

Don’t believe me? The Holocaust is considered by many in our society to be the greatest act of evil ever committed. Just recently, a sermon from televangelist John Hagee (a former endorser of John McCain) has surfaced which essentially makes the claim that Hitler was nothing but an instrument of God’s omnibenevolent will.

This twisted view of the nature of good and evil is rather commonplace; just look up Fred Phelps or the Reverend Pat Robertson.

Who said THAT? May 12, 2008

Posted by Resident Egoist in : Philosophy , comments closed

Objectivists and all rational individualists, this one’s to your benefit:

“It is philosophy that makes man understandable to man, explains human nobility, and shows man the proper road. The first defect appearing in any nation that is headed toward decline is in the philosophic spirit. After that deficiencies spread into the other sciences, arts, and associations.”

[...]

“Philosophy is the escape from the narrow sensations of animality into the wide arena of human feelings…In general, it is man’s becoming man and living the life of sacred rationality. Its aim is human perfection in reason, mind, soul, and way of life….It is the foremost cause of the production of knowledge, the creation of sciences, the invention of industries, and the initiation of the crafts.”

Go here and prepare to be shocked. You’ve been warned!

Francisco D’Anconia, Redux March 11, 2008

Posted by Resident Egoist in : Economics, Philosophy , comments closed

I just stumbled upon a very rare thing, and feeling a little nostalgic about blogging, I thought I’d share this with whomever is still dropping by here.

And what exactly is this: it’s a rational comment from Slashdot:

why do you think you achieve some sort of higher moral ground or purpose by shunning money? all you do is hobble your own ability to properly understand how the world you live in actually functions. i’m not asking you to worship money. and money certainly leads people to do evil things. but again, money is just an abstract expression of human desires. the real evil is aspects of human nature itself, not a piece of green paper with alexander hamilton’s face on it

all i’m asking you to do is grant money the proper respect it deserves for quantifying abstract human interest in such a way that it makes the world we live in a better place. yes, money is a great invention, like the wheel or the semiconductor. it makes your world a better place. bartering chickens for school books gets kind of old after awhile. thus the glorious invention of money. and no, i’m not gordon gecko. i’m just a realist. realism trumps cotton candy idealism any day. and the most sober realistic consideration of money in this world is that it makes your life better

The author was trying to knock some sense into those smug, obliviously self-righteous slashdotters who think WikiPedia shouldn’t consider selling advertisements as a solution to its financial problems. If you’re familiar with Atlas Shrugged, this should remind you of Francisco’s Money Speech — save for the fact that the definition of money here leaves a lot to be desired.

For a quick and excellent starter on money, see What Has Government Done to Our Money, by Murray Rothbard. Though I’m usually wary to recommend this author’s writings, this is by far, the single best introduction to money I know of, bar none. In light of this country’s current monetary tragedy, this should interest you.

As Aware As I Possibly Can February 20, 2007

Posted by Resident Egoist in : Philosophy , comments closed

I was stumbling around on the web when I came upon this most interesting YouTube video about con men (”Psychic” Uri Geller and “Faith Healer” Pastor Peter Popoff) and the man who handles them best: James Randi.

Randi’s exposition of pseudoscience, deception and dishonesty are simply masterful, but it is something he says that hit it most with me … so I transcribed it below:

Why People are so drawn to the irrational is something that has always puzzled me. I want to be, if I can, as sure of the world, the real world around me, as is possible. Now, you can only attain that to a certain degree, but I want the greatest degree of control.

I don’t — never — involve myself in narcotics of any kind; I don’t smoke, I don’t drink, because that can easily just fuzz the edges of my rationality, fuzz the edges of my reasoning powers, and I want to be as aware as I possibly can.

That means giving up a lot of fantasies that might be comforting in some ways, but I’m willing to give that up in order to live in an actually real world … as close as I can get to it.

Unfortunately, the Kantian in Randi shows up in there, but the essence of what he says — “I want to be as aware as I possibly can” — is one of those healthier attitudes many of us could use. It reminds me of a passage from OPAR (p. 56):

The primary choice, according to Objectivism, the one that makes concpetual activity possible, is the choice to focus one’s consciousness.

[...]

“Focus” (in the conceptual realm) names a quality of purposeful alertness in a man’s mental state. “Focus” is the state of a goal-directed mind committed to attaining full awareness of reality.

Make sure you watch the whole video — and this one, too. They’re both hilarious, among other things.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

With ‘Objectivists’ Like These, Who Needs Raving Atheists? December 5, 2005

Posted by Resident Egoist in : Philosophy , comments closed

The Raving Atheist had his latest smear of Ayn Rand yesterday — which consisted of depicting her, without any pretense at explanation, as a plague that must avoided by anyone who cares for self-preservation.

Here, is his advice to Julia Sweeny, a comedian-atheist who — due to recommendations from her audience — wishes to know more about Ayn Rand and has Objectivism: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand as second on her reading list:

DON’T DO IT — they’re the BAD ATHEISTS!!! Of course lots of Randites flock to your show and babble about her — only cult-minded atheists are motivated enough to go to live atheistic performances (the rest of us just watch them on cable or DVD). But Rand thought selfishness was a virtue, glamorized rape, thought a rational woman would never want to be president, hated gays and loved abortion. Bad crowd, Julia, bad crowd …

“Cult-minded atheists,” eh? This, coming from a militant atheist who has an entire website devoted to the subject [of atheism], and who admittedly makes it an explicit choice to watch atheist shows on cable or DVD. But this standard anti-Ayn Rand hysteria isn’t what I find especially outrageous, including the snipes about her supposed love of abortion and glamorization of rape [among other things].

What is outrageous, and disgraceful, is the alleged defense this most innocent of persons is offered by people who — for unclear reasons — like themeselves identified as “Objectivists”. Here’s a comment by one Francois Tremblay:

[N]o, Objectivism is not “Randianism”. The best works I’ve read on Objectivist thought were not written by Rand. I consider “Logical Structure of Objectivism” the seminal work on morality and it was not written by Rand. So get off the cult trip, most Objectivists are NOT members the Ayn Rand Institute.

Yes, do read that again: “The best works on Objectivist thought [he's] read were not written by [Ayn] Rand.” Let me put that another way: the best works on the philosophy of Ayn Rand that he has read were not written by Ayn Rand, but by somebody else!

And if you’re wondering why this character thinks of “The Logical Structure of Objectivism” as a seminal work on morality, it’s because David Kelley & Co. have chosen to sneak within it a chapter on so-called “social virtues” — and chief among them is tolerance.

God forbid that Ayn Rand only listed “rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness [and] pride” as essential virtues. After all, what could she have had to say about the philosophy which she created? David Kelley and Franc Trembley know best, and anyone who dares think otherwise is a dogmatic cultist!

Indeed I have not been the first to say this, nor do I suppose will I be the last, but the fact cannot be understated: these sort of “Objectivists” have the potential of doing far more damage to Objectivism than any raving anti-Objetivist ever could. Their solution to those evasive and dishonest smears against Ayn Rand consists, not of a rational refutation of those myths, but of even more cowardly dishonesty.

Their habitual response is essentially this: “yes, we agree with you that Ayn Rand was a lunatic and an amateur philosopher at best — but you must not let that stop you from learning true Objectivism, which — and I insist — she didn’t come up with anyway. Here, go read this timeless book by my tolerationist comrade who will do all that is godly possible to spare from being offended by the truth, and pay no attention to those white-washing cultists who dare tell you that objective moral judgment is possible.”

That Ayn Rand deserves far better cannot be understated.

Technorati Tags: , , ,