SelfishReasons.com

An energy bill signed by President Bush eliminates the incandescent light bulb from our store shelves in 2012, four years from now. It has had a long life since Thomas Edison invented the first practical one in 1879.

That invention was described by Paul Harvey as the day when Edison “turned off the dark.” As a cartoon illustration, it stood as the symbol for an idea, an enlightenment, a solution.

Recently it has been the bane of environmentalists and their simplest proposal to cut costs and decrease carbon emisions. As such, they successfully petitioned Congress for its removal from the marketplace, following the lead of Australia and other nations.

Global Climate Change skeptics have responded with expected fury, claiming increased mercury contamination risks, irrelevant energy savings, and poorer lighting conditions. Some have even recognized the increased risk involved for epileptics who may be strongly adversly affected by the move.

What seems to be missing from the discussion is whether it is even proper for the government to make such a decision. How can something so simple and relatively harmless be outlawed?

“But it hurts the environment! The government has a vested interest! You’ll save money! It’s for your own good…” Shouldn’t I be convinced without force? Is this not a demonstration of the weakness of the argument?

“But it’s such a small thing. Why get worked up?” It’s exactly because it is a small thing that it is such a tyrannical act. It’s insignificant effect on anyone else in the world should be reason enough to keep it legal.

“But all of it adds up to a big deal!” Theoretically. I’m not even going to bother to argue about that. I’ll take that as a given. But the correlation is that it adds up to a big deal for individuals as well.  Besides, why must the government use a threat of force against me because I wish to light my room from a different source?

Take the light bulb as an analogy. Tyrannical governments have always suppressed unorthodox thinking. Few people have been free to think in ways contrary to the official stance of political or religious leaders. Fewer still have the power to communicate those ideas to others. There is danger in ideas.

The light bulb stands as the symbol for enlightenment – the opening of a mind to a previously undiscovered truth. Where governments have suppressed knowledge, they suppress light. It is always done for the greater good, for the common interest, or so they would have you believe. But light pierces darkness, and cannot be suppressed. It mutes out shadows and guides the path.

Tyrannical men are always acting to snuff out other light. They hold tightly the torches carrying their flames and attempt to force men to seek out their fire, or be left in the dark. “It’s this light, or none at all.”

Our government is eliminating one bulb in favor of another. Most will probably not even notice the difference. It’s only light. It’s such a small thing.

But where does it end? Why accept this tyranny simply because it’s on a small scale?

Am I making too big a deal out of this? Maybe. Or perhaps you haven’t yet seen the light.

YouTube driven debates are an interesting reflection of the Internet Age.  The idea is that any American can ask a candidate any question… It reflects that American ideal that any person from any background can become President.  Imagine, you can ask them anything – ANYTHING! - and the candidates feel the fire.

It’s a warm and snuggly feeling for any person who participates, that their question just might become an agent for change in a political campaign, and maybe the next President just might be elected by your question.  Maybe your question will become policy!  What power!

The unfortunate truth is that the YouTube debates do not solve the basic problem in modern political debates.  Ask any question you wish – tough or softball.  The candidates just don’t answer the questions. 

Politicians are coached NOT to make strong policy statements during campaigns.  Keep it light, keep it vague, or else you run the risk of alienating somebody somewhere, some certain percentage that might change their vote if they didn’t like the answer.  So debates are filled with doublespeak and non-responses.  They ignore the actual question and answer one originating in their own heads, full of talking points and placations. 

But we feel connected in the YouTube debates.  After all, they heard our words!  Questions from the common folk!

Did we hear anything new?  Did anyone give bold answers?  Did the candidates truly define their differences and explain their ideology? 

For that matter, when is the last time you heard a politician give an answer to a tough question which lasted more than 30 seconds? 

Reagan was a great political orator.  He was witty and concise – but his choice of words did not mask his thinking.  His words revealed his thoughts, conveyed them.  Listeners were convinced because he explained himself so well.  Clinton was also an excellent orator, but of a completely different style.  He was a master of saying little but conveying the emotion he wanted the viewer to feel.  He was skilled at avoiding tough questions which revealed any weakness in policy, but his audience felt emotionally connected to him regardless. 

Politicians since Clinton have followed his formula, though none have had his talent for it.  Instead, we have all the vague answers with a complete emotional disconnect.  If you have a horse in the race, you most likely believe that he/she did a pretty decent job, but feel that all the others wouldn’t answer the questions…  Most likely, yours didn’t answer any either. 

And so the resolution to our disconnect with the political elite is YouTube.  After all, they are asked Tough Questions.  If only there were a YouTube which gave us real answers.

Religions get a bad rap for their attempts at converting others to their beliefs.  They see nothing wrong with it; they believe they hold special truths not understood by others, and desire that others consider their beliefs.  The idea is that the other person, once they consider this new argument, will find it persuasive and convert to their mode of thinking.  It’s not simply the domain of religion; philosophers, politicians and activists each proselytize.

No one much enjoys listening to another person proselytize.  Considerate people may give an attentive ear, knowing that they may have missed something, and just might be persuaded – even if they are skeptical.  It’s always prudent to consider that one’s thinking might be incomplete or incorrect; an open mind is a good thing.  But in the end, most people have reasons why they do not believe a different faith or philosophy. 

But if a person believes they have discovered a truth worth consideration, they sense an obligation to tell the world.  Otherwise, is it really WORTH considering? 

It’s the thinking behind everything from scientific journals to books to classroom teaching. 

So is proselytizing a good thing?  Does anyone have an obligation to spread their own Good News?

Ayn Rand was of the mindset that every man held an obligation to himself to think – to rationalize his way through the information his senses gathered.  But every man must rely on the minds of the past – the inventors of language and symbolism and mathematics, of engineering and grammar.  We truly are dwarves on the shoulders of giants, those great men of the past who made it possible to make the discoveries of today. 

Ayn’s view of personal responsibility ought to be viewed in light of her view of history.  She recounts that the discoverer of fire was probably burned at the stake – that men of creativity and ingenuity are often enslaved rather than set free to create even greater things.  Mankind has often felt that the successful owed the unsuccessful, simply for having the “good fortune” to be successful.  There are brief periods of enlightenment bookended by longer periods of dark ages and dim thinking.

In light of that, Ayn staged the protest of Atlas Shrugged. 

If it is in mankind’s interest to allow freedom for creators – and in particular, the interest of the truly inventive – then would it not be in mankind’s interest to educate the world to the benefits of personal responsibility?  Would the men of ingenuity be best served by proselytizing? 

If you haven’t seen the various articles showing interest in Free Will, you  may want to view these links:

See these:
The Economist (two articles there)

New Scientist

NY Times

Scientific thinking since Newton tells us that everything is cause-and-effect. There are quantum physical explainations for anomallies of unpredictable cause & effect, but in principle, the physical universe is determined. No atom just decides it’s going to move – it is caused to move by another atom, which was caused by one before it, and so on….

Absent God, everything is determined. Why the wind blows where it does, why grass grows where it does, why a dog sniffs *that* tree and not another… it’s all determined. Even human thought. Your brain behaves the way it does because of an extremely complicated system of cause-and-effect. Thought is nothing more than all of those various systems colliding, and we live under the illusion that we’re really “thinking.”

If you haven’t noticed lately, many magazines, scientific journals, books, etc. have discussed whether or not free will exists. More and more research says that it might not. For instance, one study asked people to volunarily raise their hands whenever they so chose. They could wait one second or one minute – their choice. What they found was that a few milliseconds before people raised their hands, something triggers in a particular part of the brain. It didn’t matter *when* they raised their hands. But before they started the process of raising their hands, their brain told them that it was time to do so. (This is a cliffs notes version – don’t get bogged down in the details of my explanation. That’s outside the scope.  For details, see the various links above.)

“Voila!” shouted neuroscience. “We’ve demonstrated that we only *think* that we chose when to raise our hands, but in actuality, our brains told us when to chose to raise our hands! Free will is an illusion!”

In light of strict determinism – the only (IMHO) reasonable conclusion to a closed-universe where no atom decides to move on its own - Free Will is only an illusion to a mind which really isn’t thinking. No, you aren’t thinking right now. You are just reacting to stimulus, and the complicated systems of your brain tell you that you are sensing what you describe as “thinking.”  You are not a causal agent.

In my view, though, Free Will does NOT exist… outside of the existence of God. All animals behave in a determined way. We humans have the spark of God in ourselves. Thinking is an act of creation – a cause without a preceding cause. When we think, we have a small demonstration of the power of God let loose on His creation. Free Will adds energy to our “closed system.” Free Will is an evidence for the existence of God.  The only alternative seems to be a determinist view of existence.

Absent an open-system universe, how would you explain the existence of Free Will?  How can Determinism be argued against?  (This is an honest question!)

My friend Matt wrote up a brief explanation of the main points of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.  It was a good description of my beliefs on the subject, and may serve as the starting point for explaining my own thinking.

Sacrifice

To Ayn Rand, sacrifice held a very different meaning than the one we hold today. This, along with her concept of “selfishness”, is the basis for most misunderstanding in regard to her philosophy. A surface glance at Rand’s work, be it from reading the Cliff’s Notes version of Atlas Shrugged, a wikipedia entry or even The Fountainhead in some cases, will lead to a misguided understanding of Objectivism (Rand’s philosophy). It is a complex and deep philosophy that is jarring to our popular sensibilities, which can lead to confusion over her intent. Without proper context, her ideas appear heartless and cruel. For example, when Rand speaks of sacrifice it is portrayed as something negative. Sacrifice to Rand was the act of paying a price for something of little or no value. For example: A mother has only enough food to feed one person. In this scenario the mother can either give the food to her child and she go without or give the food to a stranger’s child causing her and her child to go without. Rand would argue that the latter is a true sacrifice, because the mother was making a value judgement that her child is not worth as much as the stranger’s. Had the mother given the food to her own child, this would not have been a sacrifice because she holds value in the life and happiness of her child. In fact, to Rand, this option would be an act of selfishness. Which brings us to Rand’s understanding of “selfishness.”

Selfishness

Ms. Rand believed it is only through man’s pursuit of his own rational self interests that he can sustain his life, and consequently, his liberty. Man is the only creature on earth that can consciously act towards his own destruction. An animal is preprogrammed with all it needs to survive, and its actions are automated, instinctual. A human however, must consciously decide to live and take the steps to sustain that life. You make the decision to be productive by working, which provides you with the means to procure food. The junkie however, consciously decides to act counter to his own rational self interests by engaging in behavior which will lead to his destruction. So is the same true for the welfare recipient who depends on the hand of government to feed him. He may not meet the destruction which ends his physical life, thanks to the artificial interference of government, but by choosing not to be productive and think he is acting for his moral and intellectual death. To Rand, the pursuit of one’s rational self interests is the definition of selfishness. Therefor, there is virtue in selfishness as it is the act of man choosing reason as his means of survival. This led to the creation of the term Rational Egoist. All too many confuse Rational Egoist with narcissist, leading to more confusion. There is a tremendous difference between acting rationally for your own survival and vanity, as narcissism leads to destruction due to the void of reason which exists therein.

Altruism

If Rand believed in the virtue of selfishness, as defined by her, what did she see as being evil and destructive? The answer for her was altruism. Here again, we have to define what we are talking about to avoid confusion. To Rand, altruism was the act of unreasoning charity; giving to a person or idea that you did not find value in, even to your own detriment. This is where she is labeled as a heartless individual who encouraged cruelty. However, when you truly look at what she is saying, she is not condemning acts of charity. If you find value in helping a friend, family member or stranger, Rand would not tell you this was bad. She would praise it as a selfish act, and encouraged it. What she took issue with is the idea of giving to those things you do not find value in, merely because someone told you that you should. Would you be excited to give $20 to the meth addict, whom you know for a fact will use it to buy meth? Should you give, despite your reservations? To take it a step further, should you be forced by the government to give to something you find no value in, because it is being done for “the greater good”? Rand believed this is what altruism is, and why she devoted her life to pointing out how the core of collectivism is rooted in the philosophy of altruism. Rand was not against acts of “charity”, she was however against altruism as she saw it, more especially coerced altruism.

Faith

I call myself a small “o”, Objectivist, because I am a Christian. Christian being defined as someone who believes Jesus Christ was the messiah who died on the cross for my sins and was risen on the third day. While I was taken aback by Rand’s scathing views on religion (perhaps faith is the better word), I can honestly see some of her points as being valid. Predominately is the assessment that many people of faith, Christians included, often use faith as a crutch or excuse not to use reason and thought. I call these people, “easy Christians”, where nothing is viewed critically or questioned and everything is axiomatic. Galileo Galilei once wrote, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” Where I part ways with Rand is that she painted with too broad of a stroke and lumped all people of faith into one group.

Personal opinions are controversial if they are expressed without reservation. Best friends and close family members can be seperated because of opinions. It shouldn’t be that way, but we each have a desire for other people to agree with us, or at the very least, not express their disagreement.

I don’t want to clog up my family & friends website with politics, philosophy and such.  That is supposed to be safe ground, and I don’t want to alienate people who may not have the time or inclination to understand my opinions before they form soured opinions of me.

I expect my thoughts here to be honest and challenging.  I encourage healthy disagreement.  I will try my best to listen to dissent with respect - if it is reciprocated.