Jump to content


Photo

Peikoff on the coming election


  • Please log in to reply
353 replies to this topic

#1 Carl_Svanberg

Carl_Svanberg

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 21 October 2006 - 12:58 PM

Peikoff on the coming election (October 19, 2006)

Q: In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents "for a change" is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall.

A: How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.

Socialism—a fad of the last few centuries—has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial—is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government.

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor.

The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a “good” Republican.

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.

(www.Peikoff.com)

I think Dr Peikoff is essentially correct in his estimate. What's your opinion?

#2 Burgess Laughlin

Burgess Laughlin

    Member

  • SISG Moderator
  • 1,561 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Work: Telling success stories from history.<br /><br />Friends: Enjoying the pleasures of a compatible sense of life.<br /><br />Coordination of Seattle-Portland Objectivist Network, for enjoying the pleasures of socializing with like-minded individuals: http://www.aristotleadventure.com/pao/<br /><br />Leisure: Roving, in two forms -- reading fictional success stories; and walking and biking.

Posted 21 October 2006 - 02:00 PM

Peikoff on the coming election (October 19, 2006) [...]

(www.Peikoff.com)

I think Dr Peikoff is essentially correct in his estimate. What's your opinion?

I am still wrestling with the issue of voting for either party's candidates -- or even whether to vote at all for any candidate. So, I do not yet have an opinion. But I do have questions. Four are:

1. What does "theocracy" mean here?

2. Why is voting for neither party's candidates immoral rather than possibly mistaken -- especially if done "unwittingly" as stated in the last sentence?

3. Does Dr. Peikoff intend his recommendation -- voting consistently Democratic -- to apply only to national offices, or also to state offices such as governor?

4. What ideology, strategy, and tactics set the context for a particular vote in a particular election? In other words, what's the overall plan for saving Western Civilization and how does my voting in a particular election fit into it?

I may very well do as Dr. Peikoff has suggested. For the first time in my life I am tempted to vote Democratic on the national level. What I crave most is an objective plan that will enable me to make objective decisions systematically rather than by following a jumble of ad hoc guidelines (such as, "When they are equally rotten, go for gridlock"), which is all that I have now.
Burgess Laughlin
www.aristotleadventure.com -- The Aristotle Adventure: A Guide to the Greek, Arabic, and Latin Scholars Who Transmitted Aristotle's Logic to the Renaissance.

#3 RickWilmes

RickWilmes

    Member

  • Members
  • 930 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beaverton, Oregon
  • Interests:Snowboarding, cycling, Cooking on the Bar-B-Que. Beer and Wine Tasting. Reading The Great Books of Western Civilization.

Posted 21 October 2006 - 03:13 PM

Peikoff on the coming election (October 19, 2006)

The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a “good” Republican.

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

(www.Peikoff.com)


If I understand this correctly, than this would also rule out any "good" third party candidates(not that there are any) because they have no chance of winning. Unless the "good" third party candidate takes away votes from the Republicans which allows the Democrats to regain power.
My Ideology: I am an egoistic capitalist who uses reason to survive in a world ruled by Objective reality.

Rick Wilmes

Links of Honor
(Coming Soon)

#4 Stephen Speicher

Stephen Speicher

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 7,870 posts

Posted 21 October 2006 - 03:56 PM

I think Dr Peikoff is essentially correct in his estimate. What's your opinion?

The statement quoted is, essentially, a re-working of what Peikoff said in 2004. I think he was wrong then, and I think he is wrong now. The implication of immorality, and the claim that anyone "does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world" if you do not have the same judgment as he on this election issue, if you do not vote Democratic in the coming election, is simply outrageous. I find such hyperbole, whether intentional or not, to be an embarrassment for the same man who wrote OPAR.

We have discussed this supposed impending theocracy several times before on THE FORUM. Here is one relevant commentary by me from this post.

IMO, an American theocracy (i.e. censorship, ban on abortion, etc.) is significantly more possible than the Muslims ...

Abortion was illegal in the United States for more than 100 years, and we did not have a theocracy. In the 19th century abolitionist writings were censored in the South, and we did not have a theocracy. "Immoral" movies were censored in early 1900s, and we did not have a theocracy. The Post Office censored "obscene" literature and art in 1873, and it took 60 years before James Joyce's Ulysses was permitted into our country, but we still did not have a theocracy. Censorship of "obscene" literature and material continued right up through the 1960s, and Ayn Rand spoke out against that censorship, but we did not have a theocracy. Laws enforcing the Sabbath started in the 1700s, prohibiting business to operate on the holy day of Sunday, and we still did not have a theocracy. These "Blue" laws enforcing religious moral standards continued for two centuries, and even today there are sections of the country where most businesses are forbidden to operate on Sunday. And we still do not have a theocracy.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "theocracy" as:

A form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents; hence (loosely) a system of government by a sacerdotal order, claiming a divine commission.


Please stop bandying about "theocracy" as a scare word when all you really mean is the same sort of non-objective laws that have plagued the United States, in one form or another, throughout its history. If abortion is banned and Intelligent Design is taught alongside evolution in public schools, that would indeed be horrid. But abortion already was banned for 100 years, and evolution had been forbidden to schools, but those horrid events did not define a theocracy. We are light years away from God as the "king or immediate ruler," and equally far from having the bible replace our statutes. There is no "priestly order" preparing to sit in place of our constitutional Republic. Censorship and religious infringement on rights has been much, much worse in the past, and worse than the concerns that the doomsday theocracy crowd lament and wring their hands about now.

Peikoff's own words were right, at least when he said that every century since the Renaissance religion has been declining, and the decline still continues. Let's stop the fretting about a fantasy theocracy in the United States, and help the religious decline by killing the Islamo-fascists instead.

And, if anyone is curious, the Peikoff words I referred to were given in an earlier post, and I repeat them here. The quote is from a 1998 show, The McCuistion Program, "Ayn Rand & Objectivism: Is Atlas Shrugging?"

Historically speaking, we're still emerging from the medieval period; each century since the Renaissance has seen a decline in religion, and it's still disappearing, but it's going to take a long, long time.

The 8 years since Peikoff made this statement about religion disappearing, are just a little blip in the long-range perspective, which is primarily a matter of the influence of proper ideas. A little blip does not a theocracy make, certainly not in a country with the tradition and sense of life of Americans.
Stephen
stephen@speicher.com

Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.

Forums.4AynRandFans.com is a place that holds knowledge.

#5 Paul's Here

Paul's Here

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, MD
  • Interests:Engineering, problem solving, philosophy, hiking, vacationing, economics, computers, and, of course, Objectivism

Posted 21 October 2006 - 04:02 PM

---------
Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

---------

(Dr. Peikoff's quote)

As framed, either choice leads me to death. So on what basis should I choose? Morality holds that I make choices based on the life of a rational being. I don't see how one can make such broad statements without looking at the specific values of the individual running for office. There are many Republicans who don't stand for religion. The Governor of Maryland is a Republican and supports a woman's right to choose and has supports stem cell research. Should I vote against him? On what grounds?

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.


Additionally, I don't understand such condemnation of a few thousand Objectivists who might vote Republican and probably don't have any significant affect on the election. If voting for any Republican means I don't understand Objectivism, I'd like to see some demonstation of how all Republicans are fighting for a theocracy. I have not heard a single Republican advocate a theocracy.

And one more issue that I don't understand why I should vote Democrat. The threat from foreign invaders is much more of an immediate threat than a theocracy in some distant future. I am 100% confident that if the Democrats had been in power for the last 5 years, not only would the Taliban still be in power protecting Al Qaida in Afganistan, but those 20,000 plus insurgents would also be focusing their attention on the door steps of New York and Washington rather than Baghdad.
ANTHEM
"It is my eyes which see,
and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth.


It is my ears which hear,
and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world.


It is my mind which thinks,
and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth."


---------

"Life, if well spent, is long." - Leonardo

--------------------
(Avatar shows the Milky Way and our place in it.)

#6 Betsy Speicher

Betsy Speicher

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 7,234 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Thousand Oaks, California

Posted 21 October 2006 - 04:13 PM

Peikoff on the coming election (October 19, 2006)

A: How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.

====

I think Dr Peikoff is essentially correct in his estimate. What's your opinion?

It looks like this will be another election where there is substantial disagreement among Objectivists about voting.

It is true that "the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power" but that is NOT the essential issue of this election.

We are at war with an Islamic totalitarianism that threatens the lives and rights of all Americans. The Democrats stand for ignoring the threat and impeding all efforts to fight it and the Republicans stand for fighting the Islamicists in a limited, half-hearted way.

Given that choice, my vote is obvious.
Betsy Speicher


Betsy's Law #1 - Reality is the winning side.

Betsy's Law #2 - In the long run you get the kind of friends -- and the kind of enemies -- you deserve.

#7 Alon Tsin

Alon Tsin

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haifa, Israel
  • Interests:Computer games, Current events, Movies, T.V, Books (especially Science fiction and Fantasy).

Posted 21 October 2006 - 04:26 PM

As an Israeli, I most certainly hope that the Democrats don't win the election, since the Democratic presidents were very bad for Israel - Like Carter who forced Israeli retreat from Sinay and like Clinton who (among other things) forced Israel into the Oslo agreements, planting the seeds for over a decade of bloody war with the Palestinians, and forced Prime Minister Ehud Barak to offer almost 95% of the territories to Terror in 2000.

I fully understand and support Dr. Peikoff's reasons (from an American Point of view) , but as someone who lives in a country whose international politics and security are largely determined by the US president, it might be disastrous if a Democrat is elected.
Alon Tsin

"The first point of wisdom is to discern what is false .the second, to know what is true".
- Lactantius

"All wisdom consists in this: not to think that we know what we do not know."
- Houng-Wu

#8 Burgess Laughlin

Burgess Laughlin

    Member

  • SISG Moderator
  • 1,561 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Work: Telling success stories from history.<br /><br />Friends: Enjoying the pleasures of a compatible sense of life.<br /><br />Coordination of Seattle-Portland Objectivist Network, for enjoying the pleasures of socializing with like-minded individuals: http://www.aristotleadventure.com/pao/<br /><br />Leisure: Roving, in two forms -- reading fictional success stories; and walking and biking.

Posted 21 October 2006 - 04:26 PM

There are many Republicans who don't stand for religion.

I would like to do a little more reading along these lines. Would you explain first what you mean by "don't stand for religion"?

For example, do you mean "reject religion" (in the sense of "I won't stand for that!")? Or do you mean not presenting oneself as an advocate, applier, disseminator, or symbol of a religious worldview? Or do you mean something else?

Second, can you suggest names of widely influential Republican intellectuals or even merely nonintellectual but prominent Republicans who "don't stand for religion" of any sort?
Burgess Laughlin
www.aristotleadventure.com -- The Aristotle Adventure: A Guide to the Greek, Arabic, and Latin Scholars Who Transmitted Aristotle's Logic to the Renaissance.

#9 Stephen Speicher

Stephen Speicher

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 7,870 posts

Posted 21 October 2006 - 04:28 PM

The Governor of Maryland is a Republican and supports a woman's right to choose and has supports stem cell research. Should I vote against him?

I was never a great fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger, but last month he vetoed a Democratic -sponsored bill that would have eliminated private health insurance in California and replaced it with government universal health care. We would have had the country's first socialized medicine were it not for this Republican governor. I guess then, according to Peikoff, I am immoral because I do not see the spectre of a theocracy and instead would like to live out my years knowing that I can have doctors whom I value, in the State that I love. How 'rationalistically' selfish of me. :)
Stephen
stephen@speicher.com

Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.

Forums.4AynRandFans.com is a place that holds knowledge.

#10 Burgess Laughlin

Burgess Laughlin

    Member

  • SISG Moderator
  • 1,561 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Work: Telling success stories from history.<br /><br />Friends: Enjoying the pleasures of a compatible sense of life.<br /><br />Coordination of Seattle-Portland Objectivist Network, for enjoying the pleasures of socializing with like-minded individuals: http://www.aristotleadventure.com/pao/<br /><br />Leisure: Roving, in two forms -- reading fictional success stories; and walking and biking.

Posted 21 October 2006 - 04:55 PM

But I do have questions. Four are:

A fifth question I would ask Dr. Peikoff or his supporters is one I have been having trouble formulating concisely:

Given that a religion is a pre-philosophical worldview based largely on feeling (faith, intuition, and so forth), how is the worldview of Democrats generally (including left-wing Christians and other specific socialistic religionists, environmentalists, and various "New Age" people) not a religious worldview?

Yes, there are nihilists and other atheists in the Democratic Party, but are they the fundamental factor? When I look around me, locally, and remember the leftists I have met here, I do not conclude that atheists are the main factor politically. To the contrary, most leftists who actually have power follow a woozy National Public Radio type of religious worldview: pantheism as an ontology, feeling as epistemology, altruism as ethics, and "benevolent" statism as politics.

Summary: If the typical or essential worldview of Democrats is also a religious worldview, then what is the essential difference between Republicans and Democrats -- and how can I use that difference to make decisions across-the-board, at all levels of elected government?

If there is no across-the-board standard, then I must resort to weighing each candidate in each race in the given circumstances, following narrow guidelines -- such as: "Pick the one who will better fight a war against sponsors of Islamofascists, longterm," and "When they are equally bad and one party is entrenched, vote for turnover."
Burgess Laughlin
www.aristotleadventure.com -- The Aristotle Adventure: A Guide to the Greek, Arabic, and Latin Scholars Who Transmitted Aristotle's Logic to the Renaissance.

#11 Paul's Here

Paul's Here

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, MD
  • Interests:Engineering, problem solving, philosophy, hiking, vacationing, economics, computers, and, of course, Objectivism

Posted 21 October 2006 - 05:20 PM

I would like to do a little more reading along these lines. Would you explain first what you mean by "don't stand for religion"?

For example, do you mean "reject religion" (in the sense of "I won't stand for that!")? Or do you mean not presenting oneself as an advocate, applier, disseminator, or symbol of a religious worldview? Or do you mean something else?


That same question could be addressed to Dr. Peikoff, since I was using his terminology. However, I thought that the usage should be clear from the context. It is not that one "presents oneself as an advocate..." as you stated, but I would take the meaning of "stand for" (as used in the sentence) to mean represent, either literally or symbolically. I think that this was the meaning used by Dr. Peikoff in the above quote. To put it in my words, the Republican Party does not represent religion as a symbol or a literal, religious idea. The Democratic Party does stand for (represent) socialism (among other things). If I had to pick a symbol, I'd say that the Repbulican Party stands for futility.

Second, can you suggest names of widely influential Republican intellectuals or even merely nonintellectual but prominent Republicans who "don't stand for religion" of any sort?

This second part, since you questioned how I was using "stand for" and your question uses "stand for" in a different meaning than the one I used, more along the lines of what your definition was: "presenting oneself as an advocate, applier, disseminator, or symbol of a religious worldview" this is the one that's appropriate to your question.

To answer your question the best way I can (using your definition), I would say the "liberal" Republicans who are the leftovers from the Rockerfeller days. They are mainly concentrated in the northeast, Pennsylvania through Maine. (There are a few others scattered through the country.) There are several congressman/woman or Senators or Governors or mayors that come to mind. Pataki, Snow, Specter, Bloomberg, Chafee, Collins, Shays (not too sure about him). I've confined my answer to Republicans in elected office, since those are the ones that Dr. Peikoff's argument was about. About the only intellectual Republican who didn't stand for any sort of religion was Ayn Rand.
ANTHEM
"It is my eyes which see,
and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth.


It is my ears which hear,
and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world.


It is my mind which thinks,
and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth."


---------

"Life, if well spent, is long." - Leonardo

--------------------
(Avatar shows the Milky Way and our place in it.)

#12 Paul's Here

Paul's Here

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, MD
  • Interests:Engineering, problem solving, philosophy, hiking, vacationing, economics, computers, and, of course, Objectivism

Posted 21 October 2006 - 05:49 PM

-------
It is true that "the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power" but that is NOT the essential issue of this election.
----------

Can you provide some examples of how Republicans stand for religion? By "stand for" I mean represent as a symbol? When you think of the term "Republicans" is religion the first image in your mind? It is not the first thing in my mind.

The fact that some judge wants the 10 Commandments in front of a building, does that mean he "stands for" religion, or just that he's religious? Perhaps if he cited the 10 Commandments in a judicial decision, one could have an argument that he stands for religion, but one would not say that "judges" stand for religion.
ANTHEM
"It is my eyes which see,
and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth.


It is my ears which hear,
and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world.


It is my mind which thinks,
and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth."


---------

"Life, if well spent, is long." - Leonardo

--------------------
(Avatar shows the Milky Way and our place in it.)

#13 Guest_Michelle F. Cohen_*

Guest_Michelle F. Cohen_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 October 2006 - 05:52 PM

I think that Dr. Peikoff's error is in assuming that a Democrat Administration means a defused Socialist discourse. He does not enter into the equation the growing Islamist threat and its new ally, Socialist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The Democrats are bound to welcome Chavez as an ideological brother. The choice is not between an Evangelical threat and a Socialist non-threat. The Islamists are already taking over Europe. The Democrats will have no ideological weapon to stop them from moving on to take over the U.S. Unlike the Islamists, who use terrorism as a tactic, the Evangelists have to operate within the contsraints of the American legal system. Thus, the likelihood of an Islamist takeover is higher than that of an Evangelical takeover. And to put it bluntly, I rather live under a Christian Theocracy than under a Muslim Theocracy - especially as a woman.

As an Israeli-American, I can point out the example of Israel - a country that has allowed religious parties to push for the establishment of a Jewish theocracy since 1948. It's almost 60 years, and Israeli is still not a theocracy. Somehow, the secular parties and the electorate prevented it. The American electorate has an even better chance then the Israelis to fight against the establishment of a Christian theocracy. They don't need a Democrat Administration to empower them to do so.

#14 Betsy Speicher

Betsy Speicher

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 7,234 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Thousand Oaks, California

Posted 21 October 2006 - 06:10 PM

Can you provide some examples of how Republicans stand for religion? By "stand for" I mean represent as a symbol? When you think of the term "Republicans" is religion the first image in your mind? It is not the first thing in my mind.

Nor mine. I was allowing the assumption that the Republicans were pushing religion as a party and indicating, even if it were true, it was not important. In fact, I don't think it is true that Republicans are promoting religion as a politcal issue.

It is true that many prominent Republicans are openly and sincerely religious, but then again, so are Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. Even Bill Clinton has given some real stem-winding sermons from the pulpit of black churches. Some Republican's religion leads them to oppose stem-cell research and abortion, but some Republicans like Guiliani and Schwarzeneggar do not.

In terms of what's wrong with religion in politics -- having arbitrary, irrational ideas and being consistently altruistic that leads to violations of rights -- the Democrats are much worse than the Republicans.
Betsy Speicher


Betsy's Law #1 - Reality is the winning side.

Betsy's Law #2 - In the long run you get the kind of friends -- and the kind of enemies -- you deserve.

#15 Thales

Thales

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Louis
  • Interests:Programming<br />Graphics Programming<br />Math<br />Physics<br />Objectivism<br />Too many things to list

Posted 21 October 2006 - 06:43 PM

I wonder what Peikoff would say about postmodernism? Are not leftists passionate about that? Environmentalism seems to be a constant front page topic in the press, and multiculturalism has lead to the appeasement and rise of Isamacists. Just look at Great Britian, where the citizenry has been strongly cowed, and are thus caving into Muslims. It's scary to see what is happening there and in Europe generally. I don't want America to end up that way.

I do share Peikoff's concern with the so called religious right. Pat Robertson is an absolute flake of the first order, and seems to have a big following. On the other hand, a guy like Rush Limbaugh strikes me as essentially good, given his strong support for individual achievement and freedom. I do see positives there. I know Peikoff has said good things about him.

The way I see it, the best thing I can do over the long haul is argue for Objectivism continually and consistently and especially use it to advance my own life. Try to get the ideas spread in the culture, because that’s what will result in substantive change. The truth is, voting in this atmosphere is like trying to get a large sail ship going in the right direction by blowing on its sails.

#16 Paul's Here

Paul's Here

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, MD
  • Interests:Engineering, problem solving, philosophy, hiking, vacationing, economics, computers, and, of course, Objectivism

Posted 21 October 2006 - 06:59 PM

--------
Even Bill Clinton has given some real stem-winding sermons from the pulpit ......

-------


This sermon stands for something. I'm just not quite sure what.

'All of Us See Through the Glass Darkly', by Bill Clinton.

I was raised a Southern Baptist. I used to wonder why the Republicans hated me so much. I'm kind of nice and accommodating. I even go duck hunting once a year. I think it's because I'm supposed to be some sort of apostate - a white, southern, protestant. Why am I not a Republican, especially now that they've given me all those tax cuts?

--------------
I looked at the recent meeting of the Southern Baptist convention where the president went. One of their leaders was wearing a button and giving it to everyone else and it said "I'm a Values Voter" - implying that those of us who disagreed with them didn't have any values. For them, values are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, concentration of wealth and power. But as I said, Jesus didn't have much to say about what they say the values of Christians are today.

----------
Now, I disagree with them. I disagree first of all because I remember how I felt [when I heard] the promise of the scriptures in Isaiah, where God says to Isaiah "Fear not for I will redeem thee. Call me by thy name. Thou art mine." I didn't read that I had to join one party or another to get that promise.

-----------------
The most important political verses in the scripture are the next to last and the verse before that of First Corinthians. "But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love." And we read it at weddings all the time. But it's wrong. That's not romantic love, that's agape, love for each other.
[Another important passage is 1 Corinthians: 13:12] where St. Paul contrasts light today with light in heaven with God. He says, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." We have no choice but to have a charitable attitude toward each other.

-----------
It bothers me that we have an environment policy where we talk about healthy forests and cut trees down that shouldn't be cut, we talk about making the air cleaner and its getting dirtier, we talk about making the water cleaner and millions of fish are dying in New Jersey that weren't dying four years ago. That bothers me. It bothers when we have to go to war against people who could control our destiny when we have our destiny [as it relates] to energy in our own hands. If we only would embrace a clean energy future we could liberate ourselves.


ANTHEM
"It is my eyes which see,
and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth.


It is my ears which hear,
and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world.


It is my mind which thinks,
and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth."


---------

"Life, if well spent, is long." - Leonardo

--------------------
(Avatar shows the Milky Way and our place in it.)

#17 Jason Fowler

Jason Fowler

    Member

  • Members
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Interests:Philosophy, Fiction, Electronics, Car Maintenance, Computers, Basketball, Role-Playing Games.

Posted 21 October 2006 - 07:47 PM

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.


So in essence, voting republican means to have a disregard for ideas. The solution then is to not vote according to an individual candidate's ideas, but to blindly vote for the opposite party's line? :)

If religion is the "only real threat", a BIG if, then what will democrats do against islamic-fascism? How will voting democrat diminish the threat of certain elements of religion at home and abroad?

Does Peikoff think that all religious people are a real threat? If that is truly the case then I think his comments are terribly unjust to many American Christians who do not engage in a ravenous and indiscriminate use of violence.
I am an equal opportunity VALUER!

#18 Mercury

Mercury

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,448 posts

Posted 21 October 2006 - 08:27 PM

When I first discussed Dr. Peikoff's remarks on the Bush-Kerry face-off with a prominent friend of mine (a student of Objectivism) I asked him if it were possible for an Objectivist close to Dr. Peikoff to suggest the arrangment of an open, live forum (preferably face-to-face), in order for those of us in disagreement with Dr. P's position to ask him questions.

Not being close to Dr. Peikoff himself, my friend had no way to advance my proposition.

Since many students of Objectivism read THE FORUM, I thought I should make this suggestion public: Can anyone close to Dr. Peikoff recommend this live-forum idea to him?

Dr. Peikoff has, through his lectures, books, and example, been my greatest teacher, second only to Ayn Rand. As such, I take his comments with the utmost seriousness.

I disagreed with his view of the last presidential elections, but, being a foreigner, my vote was, and is yet, inapplicable. Still, I don't believe someone of his epistemological ability would make these judgments without reasonable cause; and, if he is making these comments without the full context, I need to know this firsthand. The only way I can do so is to either question him myself or have someone do so verifiably on my behalf.

#19 Burgess Laughlin

Burgess Laughlin

    Member

  • SISG Moderator
  • 1,561 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Work: Telling success stories from history.<br /><br />Friends: Enjoying the pleasures of a compatible sense of life.<br /><br />Coordination of Seattle-Portland Objectivist Network, for enjoying the pleasures of socializing with like-minded individuals: http://www.aristotleadventure.com/pao/<br /><br />Leisure: Roving, in two forms -- reading fictional success stories; and walking and biking.

Posted 21 October 2006 - 09:37 PM

Peikoff on the coming election (October 19, 2006) [...]

What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, [...] is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor. [...]

I think Dr Peikoff is essentially correct in his estimate. [...]

[To clearly separate Carl's comments from Dr. Peikoff's comments, I have put Dr. Peikoff's comments in bold.]

Carl, since you essentially agree with Dr. Peikoff's position, would you explain why you think that the Republican Party, as a political organization, is the home of religion -- and the Democratic Party isn't?

What I am most puzzled about is how a political party, which is a consequence of philosophy (in one or more forms) can be the "home" of a philosophy (in this case, a religious worldview). However, if the Republican Party is truly a home of religion, why isn't the Democratic Party likewise a home of religion, considering all the religious people in it?
Burgess Laughlin
www.aristotleadventure.com -- The Aristotle Adventure: A Guide to the Greek, Arabic, and Latin Scholars Who Transmitted Aristotle's Logic to the Renaissance.

#20 Oakes

Oakes

    Member

  • Members
  • 693 posts
  • Interests:I like beautiful objects. I like to create them. Negative people upset me.

Posted 21 October 2006 - 11:38 PM

I may very well do as Dr. Peikoff has suggested. For the first time in my life I am tempted to vote Democratic on the national level. What I crave most is an objective plan that will enable me to make objective decisions systematically rather than by following a jumble of ad hoc guidelines (such as, "When they are equally rotten, go for gridlock"), which is all that I have now.

Have you made a thread yet to discuss this? I'm thinking about it too, but I'm not very interested in discussing Peikoff's opinions in particular so I don't want to start anything here.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users