Tag Archives: objectivism

Church of Satan: It’s Not What You Think It Is

Posted on by
Reply

The magic of YouTube is such that I can be watching a lecture on four dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifolds and in the related videos section see a documentary on the “Church of Satan”. I would love to see the inner workings of the Google suggestion algorithm that came up with that based on my YouTube history.

I was very surprised to learn what Satanism is, and in the process got a valuable lesson about the danger and the power in what you name your organization. It’s clear that people will often literally judge a book by it’s cover, and will often passionate and aggressively oppose an idea or group based on nothing more than its name. We are truly an awesome silly primate species.

When I say “Satanism” or “Church of Satan”, what do you think it is?

If you’re anything like me, I think of some variety of heavy metal fan, everything from the melodic 80′s metal of Iron Maiden to the absurd intensity of death metal. Perhaps those of you who are Christian (or were brought up Christian) probably imagine something on a religious theme, maybe a group of people who embrace the evil aspects of human nature.

Well, in reality, as about 30 minutes of reading has led me to understand, Church of Satan is to religion is what Stephen Colbert is to the modern Republican party. There is nothing religious about it, it’s just a giant dark satirical Halloween party. It was started in the 60′s by one guy, Anton LaVey, who basically enjoyed provoking people, and in the process picked up a large following.

What he and the Church of Satan are is just “objectivists in halloween costumes”. PS: Objectivism is the name adopted for Ayn Rand’s philosophy. It’s an organization that promotes atheism, rational thinking, individual freedom, and a productive life. But it pushes that further into embracing all the natural things that are often condemned by religion such as sexuality, competition, aggression, envy, etc. I think it gets a little weird in the sexuality aspect, but no more weird than nudist parties. It’s strange but harmless.

To be honest, these folks creep me out a bit. They are certainly not the type I would want to “have a beer with”, but I think the Church of Satan is kind of funny at least in its original intent. Its founder (Anton LaVey) is clearly a very funny (in a sick way) guy. The problem is when you name your organization after the symbol of evil for many religious people, you’re going to get the kind of attention that could be counter-productive.

So next time you start a business or a club, try to avoid using Satan in the title unless you’re starting an Ozzy Osbourne fan club, in which case Satan might be a good call.

By the way, when I hear “Satan” the first image that pops into my head is probably the most hilarious cartoon character of all time: Satan from South Park (pictured below).

Satan's Sweet 16 Halloween party from South Park 1011

Read About Ideas With Which You Disagree

Posted on by
Reply

Main point: Learn constantly, with an open mind, and consider the possibility that you might be wrong about things you’ve believed for a day, a year, or your whole life.

At any given point in time, I have a well-defined opinion on any one specific topic (assuming I’ve considered it for at least a little bit). Sometimes the opinion is firm, sometimes it’s shaky, sometimes it’s well-thought-out, and sometimes it based on a couple of seconds of intuition and common sense reasoning. But no matter where I stand, and how I arrive there, I try to keep an open mind. I try to imagine that there is a possibility that I may be wrong even about the ideas that I’ve studied for years. “Try” is the key word here, because admitting to yourself you’re wrong is not easy, and I often fail, because like most people I can be stubborn and irrational.

Anyway, what I find particularly fascinating, is people unwillingness to read about ideas with which they disagree. People who believe in the idea that government can do a lot of good seem to be unwilling to read literature on anarcho-capitalism, objectivism, libertarianism, or classical liberalism.

Politics, religion, economics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc are all fields full of “camps”. And if you are in one camp, it somehow becomes difficult to step outside that camp in a genuine attempt to learn and consider alternatives.

I think it’s very important to read not just the opinions similar to your own but also to read those you disagree with. Furthermore, I think it’s important to read extremist literature that has at one time (if not currently) garnered a significant following. For example, I just recently read the second volume of Mein Kampf (Hitler’s manifesto on the ideology behind the National Socialist movement). This book, and any literature involving Hitler, is very difficult for me to read, because of how much of my family and friends are Jewish and have Holocaust victims and survivors in their family’s story. But it’s important for me to read and think about ideas that have lead to so much hatred, murder, and destruction, and that were followed to whatever degree at one time by millions of people. I cannot simply put that part of history in a cardboard box, fill it with tears and anger, and leave it in the attic. I have to consider it often, in order to gain a better understanding of us as individuals, us as a nation, and us as a society.

Some Practical Suggestions from Around the Web

There are a lot of different resources on the web that help you explore opinions you disagree with. After writing this blog post I googled around and found an excellent blog post on how to read books you disagree with. The three suggestions that blog post makes is:

  1. Cycling: Read one “on” (where you disagree with the majority of ideas in it) and one “off” (where you agree with the majority of ideas in it).
  2. Fringe Books: Not sure what this one means exactly, but I think he means picks books that are full of ideas about which you are uncertain or don’t know enough, and so statistically you will agree with some parts and disagree with other parts.
  3. Look for Quality, Not Perspective: This is really the best advice, and one that I have always tried to follow. The world of books is bigger than anyone can read in a thousand lifetimes, so it’s always wise to pick the best representatives of its ilk.

The Grandfather of Social Security

Posted on by
1

I’ve been hearing a lot of criticisms of the social security system from my libertarian and objectivists friends. I personally believe that the only way to ensure that young children eat brocolli is by enforcing or incentivizing that action through government policy. What am I talking about? Basically, we do not always know what is good for us, until it is too late. This will make Ayn Rand turn over in her grave, because the idea of freedom to many people is that they can do whatever they want (as long as it doesn’t harm others) and must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

This is all well and good, and it’s a beautiful theory of how a society should function, much like the theory of a free market. However, we must then be willing to live in a society that provides no safety net. We must be willing to close off all emergency rooms to patients that can’t demonstrate the ability to pay for their treatment. We must be willing to let the unemployed, homeless, senior citizens suffer or die from malnutrition due to insufficient funds to purchase food and minimal shelter. I am not willing to live in such a society.

We have to acknowledge that a safety net is needed because human beings operate in a state of highly imperfect and incomplete information. We do not know enough about the decisions we make to predict to a reasonable degree the long-term effects of our decisions in all circumstances (especially given the circumstances not within our control). We should let experts help us out. Much like Google helps us sort out search results, we should let social security establish a basic guarantee of survival no matter the consequences of our decisions. This, in my opinion, allows for greater freedom than without such a basic guarantee. FDR put it well: ”Necessitous men are not free men.” (source)

What I am arguing for, is the same thing that Thomas Paine argued for: a safety net. Whether government or private industry is better at managing such a system is a secondary argument. I believe, much like with the broccoli, private industry will let people slip through the cracks which defeats the purpose of a safety net.

Einstein’s Brain

Posted on by
4

I was listening to The Skeptics Guide to the Universe which is a laid-back podcast that preaches the value of the scientific method.

They briefly mentioned a quote from Stephen Jay Gould:

“I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”

There wasn’t any discussion of the quote but it got me thinking about the old nature vs nurture debate, given my recent reading of Mountains Beyond Mountains and the realization of just how dire the living conditions are for most of the world’s population. My intuition on this debate is that both your genetics and your upbringing contribute to what you accomplish as a member of society, but the circumstance of the upbringing is much more important. Genetics, I think, can provide a ceiling, but for most of us that ceiling is so high that it does not prevent us from changing the world through brilliant ideas or exceptional productivity.

To me, genetics provides the ability for an individual to be consumed by a goal, a passion for an idea. Our parents, our surroundings, and the minuscule details of our upbringing determine if that passion is able to flourish.

At the time of writing this, I am a progressive, a liberal, in that I believe in a government’s utilitarian value to society. However, effective “nurture” requires an unabashed respect for individual accomplishment. In other words, give a liberal $100 and 2 school kids, and he’ll give $50 to each to buy school books, lunch, transportation to and from school. This is what I believe is morally right. However, it is not most effective at developing either of the kids into Einstein. In my opinion, the more effective policy is to run a contest for the two kids. Give them one week to come up with a good idea, and whoever comes up with a better idea, gets the whole $100. It’s not about money, it’s about valuing the elite. It’s what the objectivists preach as their ideal. It’s unjust in my view, but a little of that individualistic spirit is needed to serve as a catalyst for the development of genius in our education system.