Hi Evanescent. A while back you left a comment on my blog. I hope you forgive me that the “near future” has turned into several months – we have just finished moving across the country and finally have the internet again. Anyways, I intend to address the questions you raised as a series next week on my other blog Minds2Mentes, and would like to invite you to tune in.
Starting this Easter, The site will be host to the first ever JFC
episode. Until then check it out and throw down your opinions on our hassle free comment board.
In addition to new episodes of JFC every few weeks the site also
includes fan generated content, great video/news and other links and even more to come!
You’ll see why Bono is saying “Forget Africa, donate your money to JFC”
and why Christians are saying “You evil, sadistic bastards, you can’t make fun of our lord in such a blatant and highly realistic fashion!”
Although I don’t agree with most of your ideas I do appreciate your writing style. You are obviously an intelligent person an I would assume well educated. What is your “real” profession?
Hi Tanya, for a living my job is Buyer and Analyst.
As for my education, my education was not particularly brilliant, and I have Advanced Levels in Physics and Chemistry but no degree. Most of what I have learned has been through reading and writing. Given the current state of education in topics that I enjoy, such as education, I am glad that I have no “official” training in these matters. For that, I have Ayn Rand to thank.
Hi, “Evanescent” I just started reading your blogs a few weeks ago and am mighty impressed by them. Like you, I am a former “Humanist” turned Objectivist. Humanists often speak of advancing human rights, promoting human dignity, and eliminating poverty and oppression. These are worthy goals. However, some “Humanists” such as Paul Kurtz advocate methods which would result in the exact opposite of their intended results. For example, he recently defended the idea of progressive taxation and wealth redistribution. He wrote in his article that this is primarily an ethical issue and not an economic or political one. I fail to see how the forcible confiscation of one’s wealth can be termed “ethical”. We Objectivists know that the only way to reduce and/or eliminate poverty is via capitalism. If one believes that the way to economic growth is to seize and redistribute wealth, then we might as well admit that in order to get into shape and remain physically fit is to lay around on the couch all day and gorge ourselves on beer, ice cream and Cheese Doodles. Many of the professed goals of Humanism are quite worthy. However, many Humanists advocate methods of achieving them that are antithetical to their professed goals. I became and admirer of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy because there is no dichotomy between it’s professed goals and the methods for achieving them. I see Objectivism as a form of “Secular Humanism”-the best and finest expression of Secular Humanism that there can be-an expression far better than those of organizations that specifically refer to them selves as “Humanist”. Keep up the good work. Paul M. Kay
You put everything in perspective for me on your take of what justice should be given to the Lockerbie bomber.First off I was unsure why the Scottish Government released the bomber; thinking compassion just doesn’t sound right.I was looking for other reasons and I found a number of possible ones, but still couldn’t say for sure.
Finally I found your article. It taught me to read not only between the lines but to read everything.Maybe he could appeal to a higher power on the way down.
I started my research into Objectivism when I became clear to me that as admirable as some of the ideals of humanist philosophies are, they are deeply lacking a philosophical foundation. It become obvious after a while that whilst religion is irrational and false, it did have the correct approach to a complete philosophical worldview, namely, identify your metaphysics -> epistimology -> ethics -> politics.
A lot of tripe “positions” like humanism make ethical and political claims in a vacuum without reference to necessary precedents, like pretending that animals have rights without defining what a Right is or where it comes from. In most cases, atheists and neo-atheists today have to borrow their morality from the same pool as religions because they’re unable to establish one of their own, for example: collectivist, altruism and “greater good” thinking. They are unable to do this because they make certain ethical assumptions about right or wrong without answering the question “what is good or bad?” and good FOR WHOM? Bad, FOR WHOM? The limbo resulting from the inability to answer these questions forces humanists and others to borrow from societal norms or collective thinking, many of which exist as a result of religious or politic premises – but these premises themselves are based on ethical ASSUMPTIONS – which themselves have not been derived from fact. Humanists and New Age Atheists (and yes I use the term pejoratively because I’m disgusted by so many of them) just recycle and regurgitate false assumptions and weave them into their new ‘philosophy’.
Objectivism was a breath of fresh air because Ayn Rand herself swept aside millenia or superstition and irrational thought and started from scratch. What is existence? What is reality? How can we know this? If we can know this, what are we? What is the nature of man? Knowing this, what is good or bad, FOR MAN? What is right or wrong, FOR MAN, for A MAN? Knowing this, what is the right way for man to live by himself, and with others? Knowing this, what is the proper form of government? Notice that each step results from the previous one, logically, consistently, rationally. Most theists have the chain right, they just get the first stage wrong and therefore the rest follows the trend. Most atheists pretend they know the first few steps and skip to politics, as if their ethics and metaphysics were a fact.
Theists say “you have to believe in something”. Atheists say “you don’t have to believe in anything”. The truth is somewhere is between; man needs a philosophy; a rational consistent approach to how he views the world and how he acts. That approach will not be found with religion, but it won’t be found with wishy-washy subjective make-it-up-as-you-go ‘there are no black and whites’ nonsense of the New Age Atheists. It will be found with a reality-based non-superstitious consistent OBJECTIVE philosophy that is self-consistent from the start to the finish and clearly defines and labels every term it uses and justifies every claim it makes before moving onto the next one.
About a year an half ago I became interested in philosophy and learning about objectivism. After reading a few of Rand’s works, I came across your site and found it to be an extremely helpful resource on my quest for knowledge. I have really enjoyed reading your thoughts. What you have here at Evanescent is put together very well.
Two weeks ago I launched my own site: http://www.a-equals-a.com. It is still a work in progress, but I am pleased with the framework. I will be building out each section(especially the philosophy section) with deeper content this summer. I’d love to get your thoughts.
Hi Dubbs, and thanks for your comments. I am not as active maintaining this site as I used to be, but I’m glad it’s still visited and enjoyed
I never thought I would find philosophy (and all subsequent matters, which is actually everything) so fascinating until I was introduced (inadvertantly) to an Objectivist’s blog, and from there to Ayn Rand’s works directly. It’s no understatement to say it changed my entire outlook on life. The only “downside”, if you will, is having to endure a constant stream on inane nihilistic rubbish from ignorants and “experts” alike, from all directions. I admit, I found more in common with people before Rand, but that is a failing of society’s vacuous morality, not mine. I can honestly say I consider myself a much better person now than at any stage in my life.
I’ll check out your site and where possible direct people towards it.
Kirby Ferguson said
Hi Evanescent. I think you might enjoy this little mockumentary about an atheist preacher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDZyEgx-0fc
Best!
Kirby
Krista Dominguez said
Hi Evanescent. A while back you left a comment on my blog. I hope you forgive me that the “near future” has turned into several months – we have just finished moving across the country and finally have the internet again. Anyways, I intend to address the questions you raised as a series next week on my other blog Minds2Mentes, and would like to invite you to tune in.
evanescent said
When you post your article Krista, let me know and I’d be happy to come along and discuss ID vs Evolution.
Krista Dominguez said
Here’s what I have up so far:
Introduction
Defining the Terms
Is Intelligent Design an Intelligent Theory?
Is Evolution An Intelligent Theory?
Who Created God?
What About Bad Design?
evanescent said
Hi Krista,
I’ve read your articles and will post an article of my own in reply in the coming days. Keep checking back!
cantueso said
On your list of “My Best” there is “What is morality and what are rights”.
I would very much like to read it, but it seems that its link opens to “Abolish the Welfare State”.
evanescent said
Hi Cantuseo, thanks for pointing this out! I’ve corrected all the hyperlinks now! Thanks again.
cantueso said
Thank you for correcting that one so fast!
Thomas said
This easter Jesus Christ returns… as a CARTOON
http://www.jfcshow.com
Starting this Easter, The site will be host to the first ever JFC
episode. Until then check it out and throw down your opinions on our hassle free comment board.
In addition to new episodes of JFC every few weeks the site also
includes fan generated content, great video/news and other links and even more to come!
You’ll see why Bono is saying “Forget Africa, donate your money to JFC”
and why Christians are saying “You evil, sadistic bastards, you can’t make fun of our lord in such a blatant and highly realistic fashion!”
Spread the good word!
Tanya said
Although I don’t agree with most of your ideas I do appreciate your writing style. You are obviously an intelligent person an I would assume well educated. What is your “real” profession?
evanescent said
Hi Tanya, for a living my job is Buyer and Analyst.
As for my education, my education was not particularly brilliant, and I have Advanced Levels in Physics and Chemistry but no degree. Most of what I have learned has been through reading and writing. Given the current state of education in topics that I enjoy, such as education, I am glad that I have no “official” training in these matters. For that, I have Ayn Rand to thank.
Paul M. Kay said
Hi, “Evanescent” I just started reading your blogs a few weeks ago and am mighty impressed by them. Like you, I am a former “Humanist” turned Objectivist. Humanists often speak of advancing human rights, promoting human dignity, and eliminating poverty and oppression. These are worthy goals. However, some “Humanists” such as Paul Kurtz advocate methods which would result in the exact opposite of their intended results. For example, he recently defended the idea of progressive taxation and wealth redistribution. He wrote in his article that this is primarily an ethical issue and not an economic or political one. I fail to see how the forcible confiscation of one’s wealth can be termed “ethical”. We Objectivists know that the only way to reduce and/or eliminate poverty is via capitalism. If one believes that the way to economic growth is to seize and redistribute wealth, then we might as well admit that in order to get into shape and remain physically fit is to lay around on the couch all day and gorge ourselves on beer, ice cream and Cheese Doodles. Many of the professed goals of Humanism are quite worthy. However, many Humanists advocate methods of achieving them that are antithetical to their professed goals. I became and admirer of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy because there is no dichotomy between it’s professed goals and the methods for achieving them. I see Objectivism as a form of “Secular Humanism”-the best and finest expression of Secular Humanism that there can be-an expression far better than those of organizations that specifically refer to them selves as “Humanist”. Keep up the good work. Paul M. Kay
evanescent said
Cheers Paul.
Michael Neibel said
I’m adding you to my blogroll. Keep up the good work.
evanescent said
Thanks Michael, I’ve seen your blog and I like it a lot.
susie said
You truly are amazing. Thank you for that.
ian stevenson said
You put everything in perspective for me on your take of what justice should be given to the Lockerbie bomber.First off I was unsure why the Scottish Government released the bomber; thinking compassion just doesn’t sound right.I was looking for other reasons and I found a number of possible ones, but still couldn’t say for sure.
Finally I found your article. It taught me to read not only between the lines but to read everything.Maybe he could appeal to a higher power on the way down.
Gawen said
Hey T…
I would like you to expand more or your road to Objectivism…if you please.
Other than that…how ya doin?
Gawen said
Gawen says Hiya!
Keep up the good work!!
evanescent said
Hi Gawen!
I’m doing well, my friend, and you?
I started my research into Objectivism when I became clear to me that as admirable as some of the ideals of humanist philosophies are, they are deeply lacking a philosophical foundation. It become obvious after a while that whilst religion is irrational and false, it did have the correct approach to a complete philosophical worldview, namely, identify your metaphysics -> epistimology -> ethics -> politics.
A lot of tripe “positions” like humanism make ethical and political claims in a vacuum without reference to necessary precedents, like pretending that animals have rights without defining what a Right is or where it comes from. In most cases, atheists and neo-atheists today have to borrow their morality from the same pool as religions because they’re unable to establish one of their own, for example: collectivist, altruism and “greater good” thinking. They are unable to do this because they make certain ethical assumptions about right or wrong without answering the question “what is good or bad?” and good FOR WHOM? Bad, FOR WHOM? The limbo resulting from the inability to answer these questions forces humanists and others to borrow from societal norms or collective thinking, many of which exist as a result of religious or politic premises – but these premises themselves are based on ethical ASSUMPTIONS – which themselves have not been derived from fact. Humanists and New Age Atheists (and yes I use the term pejoratively because I’m disgusted by so many of them) just recycle and regurgitate false assumptions and weave them into their new ‘philosophy’.
Objectivism was a breath of fresh air because Ayn Rand herself swept aside millenia or superstition and irrational thought and started from scratch. What is existence? What is reality? How can we know this? If we can know this, what are we? What is the nature of man? Knowing this, what is good or bad, FOR MAN? What is right or wrong, FOR MAN, for A MAN? Knowing this, what is the right way for man to live by himself, and with others? Knowing this, what is the proper form of government? Notice that each step results from the previous one, logically, consistently, rationally. Most theists have the chain right, they just get the first stage wrong and therefore the rest follows the trend. Most atheists pretend they know the first few steps and skip to politics, as if their ethics and metaphysics were a fact.
Theists say “you have to believe in something”. Atheists say “you don’t have to believe in anything”. The truth is somewhere is between; man needs a philosophy; a rational consistent approach to how he views the world and how he acts. That approach will not be found with religion, but it won’t be found with wishy-washy subjective make-it-up-as-you-go ‘there are no black and whites’ nonsense of the New Age Atheists. It will be found with a reality-based non-superstitious consistent OBJECTIVE philosophy that is self-consistent from the start to the finish and clearly defines and labels every term it uses and justifies every claim it makes before moving onto the next one.
And that is how I found Objectivism.
Dubbs Galt said
Hi Evanescent,
About a year an half ago I became interested in philosophy and learning about objectivism. After reading a few of Rand’s works, I came across your site and found it to be an extremely helpful resource on my quest for knowledge. I have really enjoyed reading your thoughts. What you have here at Evanescent is put together very well.
Two weeks ago I launched my own site: http://www.a-equals-a.com. It is still a work in progress, but I am pleased with the framework. I will be building out each section(especially the philosophy section) with deeper content this summer. I’d love to get your thoughts.
Thanks,
Dubbs
evanescent said
Hi Dubbs, and thanks for your comments. I am not as active maintaining this site as I used to be, but I’m glad it’s still visited and enjoyed
I never thought I would find philosophy (and all subsequent matters, which is actually everything) so fascinating until I was introduced (inadvertantly) to an Objectivist’s blog, and from there to Ayn Rand’s works directly. It’s no understatement to say it changed my entire outlook on life. The only “downside”, if you will, is having to endure a constant stream on inane nihilistic rubbish from ignorants and “experts” alike, from all directions. I admit, I found more in common with people before Rand, but that is a failing of society’s vacuous morality, not mine. I can honestly say I consider myself a much better person now than at any stage in my life.
I’ll check out your site and where possible direct people towards it.
All the best.
Yang said
Hi,
I’m just trying my luck to see if you could add my quotes site: [Link removed] on your links page at here: http://angel14.com/a-z-useful-links-and-quotes/
It’s pretty good and you may probably like it.
Let me know what you think. Thanks!
Regards,
Yang