anthony

Members
  • Content Count

    6,476
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

anthony last won the day on August 16

anthony had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

104 Excellent

1 Follower

About anthony

  • Rank
    tony garland

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Republic of South Africa

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    A. GARLAND
  • Description
    My all-time quote: "Man is a being of self-made soul."
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

18,757 profile views
  1. Yes, the collective appeals to and is uplifted by - the collective. More: sacrifices and guilty self-sacrifice must be made in the name of religious AGW, which, therefore, is tailor made for control of minds. (Punishment too of those minds which drove human progress through industry). Good ole fashioned altruism-collectivism features strongly in their agenda, underneath any ~true~ concerns for the planet and life. The telling question I've found to ask first, of AGW alarmists, is don't you then think, seeing you believe the future is so dire or apocalyptic, that nuclear energy (along with hydro-electric dams) HAS to be the main way forward? About nine out of ten reject that option, strangely. So how concerned are you ...really? (and how hypocritical). When the clean, economical and efficient and much-safer energy source is available, you'd rather make human sacrifices. Wind and solar "renewables" , not going to satisfy our increasing needs, is the Utopian, back to nature, fantasy.
  2. A good discussion. Stefan is great in social and gender matters, gets plenty of mileage from the non-aggression principle
  3. At least he had only one thing right. "...came to us through the filter"...etc - is well said. There's that narrative around Objectivism circles of clear-cut division: that one era ended, then, and instantly the next began - and - as if the average westerner had to make a clear selection between his J_C values and the classical or Western ones. O'ists point to the peaks (the intellectual greats who wrote the scholarly works) and forget the ~many~ who heard from them and adopted their values, integrating them quite well, esp. in America. There just weren't that many secularists around then, so pray tell who could take those ideas into the mainstream? He is a good novelist, I think I've read one or two.
  4. Hi. Do you want to leap straight into "wisdom" - by by-passing "knowledge"? That's the lazy way many take. One may join a religion, a sorta "wisdom" will be given to one without effort. But then how does one know it IS "wisdom"? By what and by whose, standards? How can it be tested and validated? There, one is blindly accepting on faith, revelation, imitating previous' thoughts and beliefs of others. Very close by, are the irreligious beliefs many pick up from general "society", the "collective" who - numerically - MUST know better ... surely? Or else, the hard and only worthwhile path: there is the individual's knowledge of reality. Which you have to undertake all alone by yourself through direct contact - perceptions, building into ever deepening-broadening concepts (i.e. reasoning). It may be best not at first trying to grasp Ayn Rand, in your casual reading of her "some good points"/ "many bad points" - (by whose, or by what, standards?) - see if you are able to identify, evaluate and encapsulate all that there is in existence, including yourself and "man". Without an objective method of cognition founded on objective reality, few if any will succeed. Could be at some point you'll begin to appreciate O'ism, but only if reality/existence matters to you above esoteric wisdom. Perhaps -- I don't know, not being wise enough - "wisdom" is the consequence, when a mind has integrated a total sum of the universe. Wisdom, as such, is not promised or explicitly professed, in Objectivism. Non-contradictory knowledge is, with effort.
  5. Interesting, to be a deist and secularist. I don't know enough about Thomas Jefferson to estimate how he carried that off, it seems as if he mentally bridged the gap from old 'order' into the new. That took great prowess. Neither set of values, certainly, is a "preferable alternative". But...immediately, and foreseeably, the "mystics of muscle" are the bigger danger, as I see this. Statism appears to be the established norm for all in the mainstream, while the US Conservatives at least in theory, speak of reducing it. I dug this up, worth a re-read. On topic I believe. One way or other, most boils down to mysticism. "As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute." [Galt's Speech] ---- Personally, the "mystics of spirit" (/mind) never had (when I was young) and can't have any sway over me. Where I think, however, and Rand above made succinct, the people whose minds can't be gotten are constantly vulnerable, is by threats to and force over their physical selves, values, etc. - in the name of "Society". The materialists can get at one where the spiritualists can't gain purchase. Then, causally, one's 'spirit" could also and equally be harmed by the mystics of muscle, by their indirect means.
  6. Really good few paragraphs. "...illustrate how the freedoms of religion, conscience, speech and press are intertwined". Reads like the antidote to theocracy to me. Have the post-liberal (yup, non-Objectivist) secularists come up with anything as good? "And Christians/Evangelicals never appealed to the State to enshrine their values?" Yes, they have. But the Left would take over the State to "enshrine" their nihilist dis-values.
  7. May be a misunderstanding. I was on about an Objectivist who in fact isn't a "centrist", but evidently pro-left, on balance. Especially considering how almost all of the craziness comes from the left, one can't morally equivocate. More and worse, when Brook disdains Objectivists who don't see politics and politicians today his way. Notice here how Amy Peikoff rather enjoys the term "Obleftivist", if only ironically acknowledging it, she implicitly accepts it. https://youtu.be/ePJtv8u1sHc
  8. Seriously? Are they unaware? Unsurprising really, when an Objectivist, Yaron, has lost his rational perspective so completely, why would one expect that the "left wing" hadn't lost any sense of proportion?
  9. That old question - replied to by your objective solution - has always looked to be question begging - i.e. What is "good"? For whom? I think it must be rephrased and fleshed out in terms most secular humanists tacitly mean it, but seldom say outright: "How can people be made to hold other people as their moral standard--without God and the immortal soul?" The secularists have not succeeded and will not, as long as "the good" equates with "the other". Seeing that even the brightest skeptical intellectuals accept without question the altruist ethics, and worse (as with Sam Harris), have argued to dispose of free will and the "self" (with the 'Soul') -- "moral truths" will NOT "be learned through reason" by them. We have to query what "reason" is for them. What next was left for the secularists is find the substitute for "God" . Political power, force, and social 'judgment', their solution.
  10. I've watched a few episodes, not bad. But it is the old false alternative at work - the authoritarianism/illogic of the Church -- or of the Left? take your pick. With too many of these shows, I find I'm always remarking on the anti-conservative, pro-Left bias. ("The Good Fight" - ?) Often subtlely done, too often to be imagining it. ,
  11. I see them (and others, like Sam Harris) more as stand-alones, 'preaching' to their choirs, and while they have numbers of followers, are not really representative of the modern secular humanists, as a whole. I have definite disagreements with some - e.g. Harris, on free will - but fully appreciate their output. Over all, there's a deafening silence from the Left about Islam. Ali, Hitchens etc. are some of the few who have the intellectualism/independence to speak up forthrightly. Otherwise, from the very mainstream of people who should - at least, equally - be most critical of Shariahism (etc.) as they blatantly demonstrate against Christians, only comes political-correctness, hypocrisy and apologism. I am looking. ;) Just, not only at the main figures. I am not content only to hear what ideas the leading-lights state, to my mind It's what effects and response they have on large numbers that helps to signify the thinking of masses of people and the political future. I usually search for comments accompanying articles and Youtubes etc. from Christian/conservatives and I conclude there's much more simple good sense and decent character shown, and liberty and individualism espoused, than from the secularists. Keep in mind what I'm claiming is all comparative, not absolute. Plainly, leftists around the world understand the need of total dominance in order to meet their goals, and one can't say the same for most Christians, as annoyingly interfering as they can be in some issues. The progressive-left, by contrast, ultimately want *everything* controlled. As long as we're agreed that rationality is not necessarily the preserve of all atheists, sometimes anyone but.
  12. For context, I look at the opposition to the evangelicals, and see the overwhelming anti-individualism and anti-reason from the secular humanists, by contrast the greater tribalists and sacrificers. Talk about bringing "the faithful together"! no one can beat the secularist Left for their quasi-religious congregations and dogmatic "faith", taking place in the modern version of a village square. Nor, for their emotional aggression, next to the (over all) Christians' self-restraint and tolerance. Comparably, from many sources one hears newer Christian thinkers constantly adapting and lately showing more regard for liberties, individual self-responsibilty, natural facts, values and - reason. I ask, do the secularists have the superior moral right that they assume? Atheism, alone, represents zero - devoid of philosophical content (while of course one's essential starting point to an independent mind) and I think that's the position many secularists have been stuck - with few ideas except their enmity and mockery of religionists (excluding Islam) and a Utopian, social dream. I think it is clear the classical liberalism of especially Europe, has been running on fumes, nearing empty. I doubt this has been the doing of their Christians.
  13. Again under-informed, my understanding is the early liberals, like the first Capitalists, were nearly all religious Christians (it can be argued that some were deists). In reading some scholars that period of change from Pre-modernism into Modernism/Naturalism often seems delineated much too sharply for my sense of historical reality. I.e. at that time - that epoch ended, another began. It simply could not be, without long overlap. I inquire whether any liberalism would have taken off without great numbers of the earlier Christians, thinkers and statesmen in agreeable support of the philosophers like Locke. I'm up for correction. But I admit to being less critical of the contemporary, especially, evangelical Christians, even sympathetic on occasions.