zantonavitch

Thanks, Jerry. That was my attempt to write a lightning-fast intellectual history of the West, while trying to place the radical ideologies of Austrianism, Objectivism, and libertarianism in context.

This is a brief history of the philosophy and culture of liberalism. It describes a life-style and civilization which lifts human beings far above that of animals, chimpanzees, hominids, and even tribalist hunter-gatherers. Liberalism features man at his best. Liberals are clear-thinking and rational men: natural, sound, healthy, happy, uplifted, and heroic. Liberalism is a fundamental category of philosophy and life-style -- something broad and general. It constitutes a definitive concept -- beyond which one can not venture or improve -- like life, happiness, greatness, transcendence, virtue, beauty, pleasure, thought, reality, existence, and the universe. Liberalism's subsidiary concepts are also ultimate and final: rationality, egoism, and liberty. In the story of mankind, first come bonobos, then semi-human Homo habilis, then primitive man Homo erectus, then highly advanced Neanderthals, then truly intelligent and impressive Cro-Magnons -- who used their 100 IQs to exterminate their brutish competitors, and invent sophisticated arrow technology, and make art such as those Venus statues and cave paintings. By 9000 BC the Ice Age ended and humans immediately converted from hunter-gatherers to rancher-farmers. After domesticating multitudinous plants and animals, by 3300 BC human beings further cultivated them with irrigation on their new private property, backed by their revolutionary social institution called government. By 1700 BC men had well-established written laws, and well-developed literature and art, and easy personal transportation using horses, and elaborate international trade using sophisticated great ships. All of this constituted impressive advances in humans' quality of life; but none of it constituted philosophical or cultural liberalism. Finally, by about 600 BC, the ancient Greeks created the indescribably magnificent phenomenon of Western liberalism. They invented rationality or "Greek reason" or syllogistic logic -- or pure thought or epistemology. This is usually described as "the discovery of science and philosophy." But along with the stunning and wondrous epistemology of reason -- naturally and inevitably and inherently -- came the ethics of individualism, and the politics of freedom. All of this can be fairly, accurately, and usefully denominated as the thought-system and life-style of Western liberalism -- of liberal philosophy and culture, especially as exemplified by Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno the Stoic. These three theorists, ironically, were labelled by their intellectual opponents as "dogmatic." This was not because these scientifically-minded, open-debaters claimed to know everything based on faith, but because the claimed to know something based on evidence and analysis. By the 100s BC in Greece, the general ideology of liberalism was well-established in the middle and upper classes. Then the Romans conquered the Greeks and within a century made liberalism their own. They even advanced the noble ideas and ideals a bit, with such thinkers as Cicero, Lucretius, Virgil, Horace, and Aurelius. But skepticism of reason ascended rapidly by the 200s AD, and with it came the decline of the greatest country in human history. The new phenomenon of monotheism began to dominate in the 300s AD, especially Christianity or "Plato for the masses." By the middle of the 400s the philosophy and culture of liberalism was dead, and so was Rome. A long, terrible Dark Age ensued. This irrational, illiberal nightmare of Western civilization lasted for a millenia. The wretched and depraved philosophy of Jesus ruined everything. But a bit of reason and hope came back into the world in the 1100s of northwest Europe with the mini-Renaissance. High-quality Greek thinkers were gradually reintroduced. Then came the 1300s and the Italian Renaissance. By the 1500s a whole European-wide Renaissance began with France's conquest of northern Italy. The French brought their reborn art and philosophy to everyone in the West. The beautiful general philosophy of liberalism ascended still higher while the ghastly evils of fundamentalist skepticism, Platonism, monotheism, and Christianity declined. The classical liberal era was brought about by radical and heroic innovators like Francis Bacon, John Locke, Voltaire, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson. The late 1700s Enlightenment and Age of Reason in Britain, France, Holland, and America featured liberalism at its height. But it was gradually and massively undermined by the irrational, nonsensical philosophers Bishop Berkeley, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Friedrich Hegel. After the 1790s the French Revolution went astray and embraced ideological dogmatism and self-sacrifice to the cause. It also converted itself into an early version of modern communism; as well as the false, evil, and illiberal ideologies of right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism. In the art world this was manifested by the slightly but definitely irrational Romantic movement of 1800-1850. Paintings started to turn ugly again. Socialism and communism fairly quickly went into high gear after Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto of 1848. Religion also somewhat revived in the late 1800s. These two monstrous ideologies backed the moral ideal of self-destruction, or the "Judeo-Christian ethic," or, even better, the "religio-socialist ethic." The fin de siecle 1890s was the giddy, despairing, hopeless, lost, end of a noble era in the West -- a dynamic, heroic, rational, liberal era. A practical, real-world, irrational, illiberal, dystopia was achieved in the mid 1900s with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Later in the 1900s there was Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and countless other despots. Illiberalism reached a hellish trough around 1985. Then came Ronald Reagan in America, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, Mikhail Gorbachev in Russia, and Deng Xiaoping in China. These four political semi-revolutionaries, in four leading nations, used their governments to change world culture in a liberal direction. These liberal leaders emerged on the world scence because theory always proceeds practice, and the theory of liberalism began to rise again -- at least intellectually, and in certain recherché circles -- around the early 1900s. It began anew with Austrian economic thinkers like Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and Friedrich Hayek. In addition to the dry, mechanical realm of economics, they addressed the fields of politics and sociology -- and even ethics and epistemology. They filled in many of the gaps, and corrected many of the weaknesses and failures, of Locke, Smith, and company. The Austrians also attacked the communism, socialism, and progressivism of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, among others. And they taught the fiery intellectual novelist Ayn Rand. Rand converted from fiction to philosophy from the late 1950s to the late 1970s. She was by far the most liberal thinker in the history of man. She created the philosophy of Objectivism. Ayn Rand advanced human knowledge about as much as Bacon, Locke, Voltaire, Smith, and Jefferson combined. Sadly, however, Rand undercut her liberal ideology with a heavy atmosphere and subtext of cultism and religiosity in her propaganda movement. This was understandable, considering how revolutionary and hated her philosophy was, but hardly rational. However Rand died in 1982 and a highly rational and non-religious organization organized around her discoveries emerged in 1989. This brought the world Objectivism as a thought-system, not a belief-system; and Objectivism as a rational, benevolent, effective philosophy -- not an irrational, malicious, weird cult. There are currently three separate but related avant-garde liberal ideological movements: Austrian economics, libertarian politics, and Objectivist philosophy. All three are tiny but, based on historical intellectual standards, seemingly growing solidly. Pure liberalism -- a pure, clean, complete comprehension that reason was 100% right in epistemology, individualism was 100% right in ethics, and freedom was 100% right in politics -- began in the early 21st century. Randroid illiberalism began to die out. A New Enlightenment is about to begin.

Michael Marotta writes: "The fact is that each day is not your last. If you spend your last day saying good-bye, tying up loose ends, etc., what do you do when the new day dawns? You would never plan for the future, take on a long-term project, complete a complicated task, achieve anything requiring more than a day." This is basically right, but the general sentiment of "Live each day as if it was your last," still seems mostly true and helpful. One variant of this theme I've heard is: "Treat every person you meet as if you knew it was his last day on earth."

William Scherk -- If you were really banned there, I don't agree with that. But I've been banned repeatedly at the Objectivist religious/cult sites like 4aynrandfans.com and objectivismonline.net, and repeatedly censored at solopassion.com, rebirthofreason.com, and objectivistliving.com. This invariably reflects the weakness and failure of the sites -- not of myself. You say that Objectivism is 1) wrong on emotion 2) wrong on language acquisition 3) incapable of correction. How so? Can you explain this or point me to a link for a previous discussion?

"Live each day as if it was your last." You'll probably be exhausted after a few days. It doesn't seem stategically wise. Still, that classic quote from Horace (65 BC - 8 BC) seems apt: “Sieze the day! Rejoice while you are alive; enjoy the day; live life to the fullest; make the most of what you have. It is later than you think.”

Selene: Where is all the hostility coming from? I never even heard of you until a few days ago.

These people are too silly for words. They should be laughed out of human existence.

Michael: Grossly false. Objective law shouldn't be such a nebulous and difficult concept. I favor and promote rule of law in all government matters -- such as with captured jihadi suspects -- and with a principled consistency few or no other Objectivists do. I don't know what "many posts" you're referring to, and I'd be interested in reading even one that could be so twisted. My advocacy of objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality in law -- and even in journalism -- is unambiguous and emphatic. "Mental cruelty" laws, in defense of children, currently widely exist. They just need to be tweaked a bit, in consideration of the genuinely and objectively evil act of "teaching" innocent, vulnerable children religion.

Barbara -- Many thanks for the long and thoughtful Post! Sorry I'm so slow to reply. I like the fact that you strongly recommend Sam Harris's book on religion. Despite some odd flaws and speculations toward the end of this book, he really got the New Atheist ball rolling. I read his book a long time ago, as well as his more recent Letter to a Christian Nation. Harris, Richard Dawkins, Chistopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett (and Victor Stenger -- secretly the most hard-line) have all written marvelous books on atheism in the past few years, in my view. Their passion, energy, intransigence, confidence, ambition, fire, and fury have quietly changed the world forever, I think. They're just like Rand (albeit much less intellectually powerful). These truly dynamic guys have planted terrific seeds of truth which will only grow and become greater over time. (Little do today's pious and holy know it but: Religion is fu----, uh, doomed! :whistle: ) My hearty thanks also to BillP for his many quotes from AR's journals. As evidenced there, her pre-Objectivist attitude toward religion was terrific and right-on. But -- that's the point. She didn't manifest that ferocity in her public face, in my judgment. That was her considerable error. Lucky for humanity, the above New Atheist writers are filling in for her lacuna. I admit -- as you point out, Barbara -- that having the state decide what constitutes illegitimate indoctrination in kids is a bit scary. But I see no alternative. Maybe we should just think really hard and clear about this, and then make the law extra objective, and deeply factually neutral. Strip away as much subjectivity and personal opinion as possible in the judges. You wrote: This is a beautiful quote.My fundamental disagreement with the founding fathers of Objectivism can be encapsulated in one idea: Perhaps not surprisingly (for me!), I think considerably more militancy was called for. But then -- that's pretty much my solution to everything. More fire and fury, folks!My final main dispute with the early Objectivist thinkers relates to my own private theory of religion. I don't want to bore you with it (altho' an old version can be read on the Rebirth of Reason website), but I essentially think Rand and the others were wrong to use the term "mysticism" so much. They conflated and confused three or more very different things: (1) mere superstition and random irrationality, (2) organized polytheism (which is rather harmless charming helpful fiction, and the forerunner to philosophy), and (3) religion (which is the horrifically evil death thing). I find the concept of "god" blacker than any midnite inside the deepest coal mine. Maybe this is because I have vivid memories of my mom lovingly teaching me about "god" at age three. The psychological wreckage was greater than I could ever tell you. (And this from a person who never attended church, or read a bible, or spoke of "god," or anything else.) Just some thoughts! Another might be: We should much more call ourselves passionate reasonists and champions of reason, rationality, logic, science, and math -- not "atheists." Another thought might be: "god" leads far more naturally and quickly to altruism than the early (and even current) Objectivists supposed. And I have a few more thoughts on the topic of religion/monotheism as well. But maybe I should write an article about it, instead of briefly shallowly sharing it with you all here.

Always nice to hear from you, Barbara! A treat, actually. Now... It doesn't really matter what "a great many people" say. We live in the Dark Ages, by my reckoning, so a great many people today are ignorant and foolish. But only the actual, neutral, objective truth matters in judging whether or not someone is guilty of the crime of child abuse. And "the arbiter" of what this truth is, is reality and the real world. I don't think it all that difficult to gauge whether or not an overwhelmingly vulnerable kid is being indoctrinated and mentally poisoned by some ideology. Instilling false and evil ideas into defenseless children is very different from attempting to do so to potentially powerful, thinking, intelligent, rational adults. Ultimately, I think this issue goes back to the history of early Objectivism. With all due respect, I truly think the leading Objectivists of the Golden Era (of which you were one) somewhat missed the boat on the issue of the broad and deep evil of "god." And the problem remains with us to this day. Religion seems to be a greater horror and damager to the Individual and his society than most early Objectivist intellectuals supposed. And it was and is a phenomenon more pervasive and present in American society than you guys supposed, in my view. It's easy enough to see why Rand, Nathaniel, yourself, Greenspan, Peikoff, and others evidently made a certain decision, and somewhat avoided this cultural and philosophical issue. You guys were battling heroically, and trying to slay a hundred different intellectual dragons at once. You didn't need or want another. Especially such a well-established and unshakeable one. This issue (perhaps!) could also have been reasonably put off, for strategic reasons. Still, I wonder... Is it possible, Barbara, you could share with us the thinking of the early Objectivists on this? I'd love to hear anything you have to say on the subject. I'd be especially interested in hearing about any disputes in the 1950s and 1960s as to how important religion was, and how great a menace to humanity, and how hostile to the essence and future ascent of Objectivism.

Brant: That's a non sequitur. I favor a free state. One without child abuse. Do you claim "teaching" religion is not child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture? How terrible do the lies and mental pain inflicted on the defenseless innocent have to be, before you would protect the rights of the children?

"Teaching" religion to children is child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture. All the parents, preachers, and "teachers" who do this need to go directly to jail. Richard Dawkins essentially argues this too.

High-quality abstract art is pleasant to look at, and often constitutes a nice design. But it doesn't seem like art. Maybe it would make for good wallpaper or floor tiles... Here's a question for Michael (or anyone else who dares): What's the difference between a good illustrator and a mediocre representational/realist artist?

Michael -- I read all of your quotes of Kant and most of them in Roger's essay. But they're hard as hell to digest. I have to give them the value and time I think they deserve. I'm nothing but intrigued that you like Kant! But I have to go by my own judgment until persuaded otherwise. In this regard, even a single good and true whole paragraph by Kant would be nice to read...

Well, it was one of them. She identified the enemy and the evil beautifully. I think the world will always be grateful.

Roger -- Eventually I'll probably get around to discussing this guy in considerably more depth and detail -- which is a wholly legitimate request. But he's boring and unrewarding as hell -- the worst ever. So my motivation to read him is quite low. And in fairness I have already discussed the substance of his work a bit -- with my brutal attack on his hideous use of language, and a few other things. His work is deliberately almost entirely devoid of reason and sense. So it isn't fun or informative to read.

Philip -- Thanks for coming to my defense, but I think Roger's questions are respectful and valid enough. I'm never really insulted until someone actually insults me. And I certainly am degrading and insulting Kant. Based on my (brief) reading, I think he's pure slime. I feel sick inside to think I possibly haven't accomplished more with my life than he has with his. As a part-time writer, I'm a contributor to human knowledge. I advance understanding. Kant is just an irrational, nonsensical confuser, underminer, and destroyer. He adds nothing. Or at least virtually nothing. And he subtracts a great deal. What a nightmare for mankind!

Roger -- Sorry, I didn't really read your post. It's quite long and complex. But I did skim it. Kant just never seems worthwhile to me. He also seems dangerous -- to one's mind and soul. I consider him stunningly evil and highly clownish. And I think he did it all on purpose, with full knowledge of the consequences. Or at least with something close to it. To judge some of my achievements, relative to "the smasher of all," maybe check out the brief remarks at The Liberal Institute website and the article section of Rebirth of Reason. I try to add to rational liberal culture -- not destroy it. I want the individual and his society to be happy -- not miserable. Kant emphatically seems to favor the opposite.

Michael -- I'm really curious: Why did you chose to spend so much time with Kant? Was he worth it? It certainly seems like you'd have been much better off reading the aesthetics of Aristotle. Or else the philosophies and biographies of Renaissance and Enlightenment painters. Or else that of the movie-makers you admire and are interested in. Just curious...

Bill P -- Well, who is? And where does Kant rate, in your view? I tend to agree with Rand: He's #1.

People pretend to like this hyper-evil clown because he once said "Dare to know," and "Man is an end in himself." Two empty, useless, meaningless, out-of-context quotes which are entirely contradicted and refuted by the rest of his voluminous, completely-unread work. His dull, sluggish, strictly-mediocre, four-page essay What is Enlightenment? is evidently the clearest, best thing he ever wrote. Pitiful! Might as well say the Bible is wise and good because is says "You shall know the truth and it shall set you free." Might as well say the Koran is tolerant and good because it says "There shall be no compulsion in religion," and "Anyone who has done an atom's worth of good, he shall see it." After wading thru a thousand pages of malicious gibberish, that's it?! Sad. The fact is, there's far more insight and truth in a poorly written comic book than in Kant! Objectivists seem to praise him just to be perverse or to intellectually intimidate or to show the usual pseudo-individualism ("Hey, I'm no cultist!"). Immanuel Kant is stunningly evil, insipid, and unreadable. No-one's even decently slogged thru twenty pages, I'll bet. And why should they? Kant basically never says anything true, insightful, wise, or worthwhile. I'll say it again: When it comes to truth and virtue, there's not a single badly written comic book in existence which can't royally kick the ass of the whole uber-destructive corpus of Kant!

Chris -- My quote was made up. In fact, Kant wouldn't have been as easy to understand. Seriously. You can't parody him. Ultra-vermin Kant once claimed that "Never a straight thing was made from the crooked timbre of man." But the truth is: "Never a straight thing was written by the crooked pen of Kant."

Michael -- Clear clean words and clear clean thoughts go together. They generally indicate and reveal truth. Convoluted, serpentine, torturous, strangled words generally indicate and reveal the exact opposite. Or as Kant might put it: "Semiotic verbal iconography, hermeneutically circumscribed by ratiocinated linguistic translucence..."

For what it's worth, I seem to have received about 7 of 8 issues of The New Individualist so far (missing only March). I just wish this wonderful magazine was available in Barnes and Noble bookstores. Liberty (a libertarian monthly) is found there in New York City, and I'm virtually positive The New Individualist would sell even better!

Outstanding anecdote, Barbara! Thanks for sharing it. Even people who've never decently read Rand often have volumes to say about her. I'll bet Buckley -- with his quietly seething antipathy -- was no exception. I'd love to hear anything else he had to say. Even very uniformed and malicious views can often be insightful and worth hearing...