Who's Online
There are currently 3 users and 12 guests online.
Online usersWho's NewPoll"The world is perishing from an orgy of weasel-words."—Linz. The explanation for this is:
Linz is wrong. The world isn't perishing at all, from anything. No explanation required.
5%
Gramsci/Alinsky: the "long march through the culture," dispensing sugar along the way.
35%
Social metaphysics. It's "cool" to talk in weasel-words.
5%
Innocent ignorance. Folk are so brainwashed they don't know any better.
10%
Headbanging and associated drug-taking. Folks' brains are addled from it all.
10%
Parts of all/some of the above (explain).
10%
Other (explain).
25%
Total votes: 20
|
The Ideological Origins of Right and LeftSubmitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Fri, 2010-03-05 00:28
This analysis concerns an early version of Rightist and Leftist ideology more than two millenia before the French Revolution. It deals with the earliest opposition to rational philosophy and derivative liberal culture. It seeks to explain that the two natural and inevitable enemies of reason and Western Civilization are conservatism and progressivism, or Right and Left. The permanent fight between existence and non-existence, life and death, pleasure and pain, flourishing and suffering, prosperity and poverty, civilization and barbarism, happiness and misery, good and evil, truth and falsity, etc. takes many forms. But for the past 2600 years — ever since rationality was discovered and invented — the world has principally been engaged in an unending battle of reason vs. the irrational, superstitious, and supernatural. Or else reasonism vs. right-wing dogmatism and left-wing subjectivism. These last two unite in the concept of philosophical Skepticism. What might be described as fundamental Skepticism is the true and ultimate destroyer of human life and happiness. The opposite of this ur-evil, and a natural product of consistently rational thought, could be called "confidentism" or certaintyism." It's the belief that reason is valid and that the human brain is competent at apprehending reality. It's the idea that truth is available and possible to man. It isn't the claim that any given person, group, doctrine, philosophy, or category of thought is necessarily flawless or inherently absolutely true. "Certaintyism" argues that knowledge is obtainable and that some things are known -- not that everything is known without the possibility of doubt or challenge. Early Greek illiberals smeared this belief as "dogmatism." But that was wildly unfair and inaccurate. Proper "confidentism" seeks the truth fearlessly, and finds some of it -- subject to free and open discussion, debate, close scrutiny, and rigorous, merciless, critical examination. It seeking and finding some, and perhaps many, facts about reality, it avoids the Rightist error of faith and dogmatism, as well as the Leftist error of relativism and subjectivism. The sophisticated Greek thought-system of reasonism and their derivative advanced culture of Western liberalism began with the first truly rational man. It began with the creators of philosophy and science, namely Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. Logical thought and Western Civilization had an early climax with Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno the Stoic. The primitive belief-system and retrograde culture of rejectionist and nihilist Skepticism -- both the right-wing conservative and left-wing progressive variety -- began with the first truly irrational man. It began with the largely senseless and contradictory thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Gorgias, and Zeno the Paradoxist. Irrational, illiberal intellectualism had an early climax with Plato, Arcesilaus, and Carneades. All three of the above can be seen as the early fathers of both Right and Left. Observe that Plato could fairly accurately be described as both the primogeniture of mysticism (the error of the Right) and of communalism (the error of the Left). And Plato favored what I call the religio-socialist ethic (an expanded version of the Judeo-Christian ethic), which supports both. He was considerably irrational and illiberal in wanting the wise and enlightened to self-sacrifice themselves for the benefit for the ignorant and benighted in his Allegory of the Caves. The fundamental culture, life-style, and philosophy of reasonism eventually led to the thriving, dynamic, awe-inspiring nations of Athens, the Roman Republic, Western Europe, and America. The fundamental culture, life-style, and pseudo-philosophy of relativist, subjectivist Skepticism eventually led to the Leftist, communist, belligerent, military dictatorships of Sparta, the late Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, and red China. The fundamental culture, life-style, and pseudo-philosophy of faithful, dogmatic Skepticism eventually led to the Rightist, fascist, belligerent, theistic dictatorships of the Dark Ages, the monarchical absolutists, the Nazis, and the jihadis. Reasonist arguments, speculations, and claims were almost always presented calmly, dispassionately, systematically, and rigorously. But dogmatism and subjectivism reflected and engendered a kind of mental and psychological tyranny which made the Rightist dogmatists and Leftist subjectivists rather hate abstract truth and science, as well as any neutral, objective, fair-minded presentation of evidence, facts, and proof. So the presentation of their fundamentally Skepticist arguments, speculations, and claims generally involved a fair amount of hysterical passion and out-of-control fanaticism. To this day both irrational belief-systems and illiberal cultures wantonly and rather maniacally attack the reason-based thought-systems of Western Civilization and philosophical liberalism. A left-wing, progressive-style illiberalism ineluctably leads to a post-modernist, socialist slavery — which includes mental and psychological tyranny. A right-wing, conservative-style illiberalism ineluctably leads to a pre-modernist, theocratic slavery — which includes mental and psychological tyranny. Leftism today is exemplified by Stalin and Mao. Rightism is exemplified by Hitler and Khomeini. “Upwingism,” or reasonism, or Western liberalism, in contrast, is exemplified by Locke and Smith, as well as Voltaire and Jefferson. The current best and most advanced version of liberal thought is found in Objectivism, the philosophy invented by Ayn Rand. A personal, social, political, philosophical, and cultural paradise would be derived from a fully-realized, completely civilized world of pure reasonism which oozes confidence in, and certainty about, thinking, logic, rationality, science — and sensible, solid, sound philosophy. It would be devoid of Left and Right, including collectivism and god. This utopia would be based upon the entirely reasonist and idealistic world of pure liberalism.
|
User loginNavigation |
Revised Version
I've taken to mind the criticism of Gregster and Lindsay (which is always welcome!), and added a reference to Objectivism in the penultimate paragraph. I also expanded the essay by about 20% from 5 days ago.
Seeing Objectivism in Historical Context
Lindsay -- I truly do see the whole world -- including history and philosophy -- thru just one prism or concept, namely that of liberalism. I think liberalism, or "the culture of reason", or "the philosophy of rationality, individualism, and freedom," or however one might want to describe it, very specifically began 2600 years ago with the Greeks, and not with the Old Europeans, Mesopotamians/Sumerians, or Egyptians; nor with the Indians, Chinese, or Meso-Americans -- however valuable all six cultural groups are to know. I even consider the religion of the first Dark Age and the socialism of the current Dark Age to be clearly irrational and illiberal.
The purpose of my article was to try to explain something that occurred to me in the past year or two. Pretty much all fairly-sound Objectivists will agree that right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism are a significant falling away from, and rejection of, 1700s classical liberalism. But it seems to me that these two standard-issue alternatives, false dichotomies, and errors can also be found in the first liberal era from two millenia ago -- the first Era of Reason, as some astute historians call it -- and not just in the second one with the Enlightenment.
That was the point of my somewhat awkwardly worded and reasoned essay. Objectivism wasn't around when Rightist and Leftist philosophy and culture emerged from those rejecting liberalism (or whatever one chooses to call it) in the Greco-Roman and Renaissance/Enlightenment periods.
To be sure, I see Objectivism as a liberal philosophy, not necessarily the liberal philosophy. It's just so different from, and superior to, its current rivals -- such as atomism, Aristotelianism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, and goulash 1700s classical liberalism -- that it usually seems to the casual reader to be a final answer or a definitive philosophical thing. But I don't think it is.
It's worth noting that Ayn Rand expanded and improved on Objectivism all of her life. She fearlessly searched for the truth, and publicly wrote about it, despite virulent criticism from contemporaneous thinkers and established authorities. We should do the same. My disputes with current Objectivist theory, if any, are truly minor, if not trivial. I just see Rand's philosophy in a moderately different context than most of today's Objectivists.
Mr Z
Given this:
... don't you think you should have at least mentioned Objectivism in your essay, rather than presenting all Rand's dichotomy-busting as your own or that of some vague "Liberalism"? I too am vigilant to cultism, as you know, but the behaviour of some Randroids of yesteryear doesn't justify not giving Rand herself her due.
And if you say there are flaws in Objectivism, tell us what they are. This is a free-thinking Forum. The worst that might happen is that you'll get yelled at.
I myself have disagreements with Rand, but I don't think any of them is fundamental.
Close but...
Gregster -- In simple terms I define the general philosophy, or category of philosophy, of liberalism as that which is based upon: the epistemology of reason, rationality, logic, and science; the ethics of individualism, self-interest, and personal happiness; and the politics of liberty, justice, and individual rights. Liberalism is derived from the best and most quintessential of the four historical groups: the Greeks, Romans, Renaissance Europeans, and Enlightenment Westerners; and the three avant-garde groups: the Austrians economists, Objectivists, and libertarians. But do any of these groups qualify as 100% rational, liberal, and true in their speculations? I doubt it. Philosophy still considerably needs to be developed, expanded, improved, and refined, in my view. What I call The Liberal Ideal constitutes a very high standard indeed.
I think that the Objectivist thought-system is far and away the most rational, liberal, and true ever invented. It's a genuinely stunning guide to immense aspects of personal and collective happiness. But I don't consider it flawless. I sometimes wonder how truly dedicated Objectivism is to reason and egoism when I see all the resultant cultism. I occasionally question how dedicated Rand was to science when I see how much she seriously doubted evolution, relativity, and the Big Bang. I even have my doubts about an esthetics so oriented towards moral black and white, and plot, when moral grays, and heavy atmospherics might yield more intellectual subtlety and artistic power. And I find metaphyics and epistemology personally difficult and tedious, and don't just assume current Objectivist theory here is right in all aspects.
So is today's version of the philosophy of Objectivism the final, definitive, wholly-perfected stage in Western Civilization's 2600-year, rational, liberal evolution and ascent? Not quite.
Come on Kyrel
stop beating around the bush. Liberalism? Shake yourself up and say it - "Objectivism."