Note: The following is my reply to a commenter nicknamed Biogeek who asked me the following question: “How do individualists put ‘individualism’ into practice, beyond the individual?” Read Biogeek’s full comment here.
An individual of self-esteem and pride is not a second-hander, or one who wants to be great in the eyes of others…
Society is a myth... it's all of us.
Congrats [to the Ateneo Blue Eagles] and I appreciate your comment. Regarding your query I have to say that I’m humbled. I have talked about this in one of my blogs written about a year or two ago –> http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/individualism-versus-collectivism/. You asked me “How do individualists put ‘individualism’ into practice, beyond the individual?” You mean to say how does man practice individualism? In practice I believe that ego exists, and this is the source of your understanding of self-esteem and pride, including other important abstractions. However, such an ego must come from your objective understanding of reality, as well as your honest understanding of human achievement. You go by reason, not faith. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by your senses. It is immoral for man of ego and self-esteem to take things on faith. read more…
Note: The following is my answer to an anonymous commenter who, despite my earnest efforts to encourage him/her to reveal his/her identity, strongly refused to hide behind an absurd pseudonym. He/she simply resorted to evasion by simply saying that he/she believes in “authorism” (whatever that term means) so he thinks he/she is justified to conceal his/her true identity. To me, however this commenter defined his refusal to share his/her identity, that’s a sign of cowardice. If you have the guts to engage in an intellectual discussion, you must also be ready to show who you are. Identity of parties is an essential requisite in an informal or formal debate. Click here for the commenter’s full comment.
This whimsical thinking only leads to man’s Orwellian destruction, wherein language is at the arbitrary whim of those who have the capacity to define words according to their collective, irrational or dictatorial objective.
The world of matrix (the phenomenal world) where reality is not percepts but words which have no core meaning. If words have no core meaning, how can man think properly?
Anti-essentialism (however you want to use that term),
I can detect your purpose in trying to narrow down the discussion here. But that’s just fine. I can give you a few minutes in spite
of your anonymity. As much as possible I don’t want to deal with anonymous commenters, and I admire those who’re brave enough to reveal their identity. When I wrote this blog, I never entertained the idea of hiding behind a pen name. Now in your reply, I hope that you’d muster enough courage to show your identity (which means you’ll give me some ways to validate your identity).
This is your main point: “We must recognize that words have no core meanings. We mean what we want them to mean, albeit not as arbitrarily as this may sound.”
What I can gather from this subjectivist approach to language is that since words have no core meaning, read more…
Note: A commenter nicknamed Charles asked me to comment on issues like capitalism, self-interest, the concepts of “Aryan way of thought, collectivism, and bigotry. Please click here for the commenter’s full query. The following is my reply:
Throughout man’s history, man or the individual was enslaved or ruled by two kinds of mystics— the mystic of spirit and the mystic of muscle…
When you can no longer carry the weight of the world, woud you shrug?
Hi Charles,
You have raised interesting points in your comment, and I will try my best to deal with the matters you adduced seriatim. First, I have to tell you that I have no formal degree in philosophy, although I have learned through my own efforts to understand life and the concept of reality through reading, observation and the Aristotelian concept of induction. I adhere to the philosophy of Objectivism, a philosophy that can be summarized in the following manner:
- Metaphysics: Objective reality
- Epistemology: Reason
- Ethics: Self-interest
- Politics: Capitalism
I have to lay down these principles because they convey the fundamental premise of this essay. Your queries are focused on the critical questions I raised in my previous essay entitled the Philosophy of Academic Bigotry. I concluded that essay with the following questions: read more…
And if any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.
The following is from Dwight who reacted to my blog entry entitled Update: The Philosophy of Academic Racism:
“I do not agree with many of your points and I didn’t enjoy the writing style that much; but I do like the way you’re questioning things and shaking them up.
It’s sad to see so many people resort to name-dropping and personal attacks; like you said, it simply proves a lot are not open toreasoning.
Hopefully, people reading your posts realize that these thoughts are meant to challenge themselves and question who they really are and what they stand for. The point of any philosophy after all is to ask questions that will get us closer and closer to the truth, which will always elude us due to the depth of reality itself.
PS. In your free time, also try questioning Rand’s views. She may be a genius, but like any other human being, she does have her flaws.”
The following is my response:
I find Ayn Rand’s ideas real and unassailable. They correspond to reality. I have to tell you that I went through a very long process of “intellectual detoxification” (or call it what you will) before I came to understand the essence of her philosophy. It’s a very rigorous and painful process. It is painful because I had to reject things that I embraced for years- like religion, philosophical read more…
“Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It’s simple. Tell them to laugh at virtue”
Reason versus faith...
I’M not really surprised by how my critics responded to my blog entitled When UAAP is Reduced to Academic Racism. I have to admit that there are a few who presented their rational and well-thought-out responses, while most miserably advertised their hippy-like behavior and mentality. Most of the feedbacks are pretty amusing and entertaining, while some (those deserved my answer) kept me awake while watching X-Men Evolution online.
Sad to say, most commenters cried foul over how I defined their UAAP mantra, which I described as bigoted. I had to state the message behind this bigoted slogan— “Win or lose, it’s the school you choose”— and I anticipated that most would interpose such lines of defense as ‘collective spirit,’ ‘school’s support for the team,’ etc. To Ateneans, this mantra read more…
Note: The following is my reply to Angeli Ateneo-Batch 2008 and all those who demanded my further answer:
In sports, it is the best athlete that will win regardless of his school, academic standing or family relations. In sports, the main goal of the athletes is to show their INDIVIDUAL ability and not collective talent or skills.
CONGRATULATIONS TO ATENEO BLUE EAGLES! IT’S A WELL DESERVED WIN!
ALL my arguments you (Angeli) used are enough to answer your point. Generalization? I had to give examples, which came from my own observation of reality. No, ma’am, I did not generalize. I must agree that there are folks from your school who do not subscribe to academic bigotry, but why is there a need for a so-called school of reason to go down to that level, which is collectivist and anti-reason in its very essence. The Hitler example I used is just an analogy, to argue my thesis that any educational institution that preaches that pride and self-esteem are abstractions that can be decreed or anointed is improper.
Win or lose, it’s the school we choose” is a battle cry for the UNEARNED, for something that is outside the attributes and character of an individual. It’s a battle cry for ZERO… One can’t have a battle cry for the negative or ZERO unless he’s a second-hander, brainwashed or a bigot. read more…
WHAT happens if men of ability and of self-esteem in a free and civilized society would go on strike?
My favorite book...
Ayn Rand’s bestselling book entitled Atlas Shrugged offers a possible scenario if, in an enlightened society like the United States, freedom were taken away from the people and man’s pursuit of happiness were perverted by the scheming bureaucrats. The result, according to this philosophical book, would be severe economic instability, dictatorship and social chaos.
Ayn Rand, who considers herself primarily a novelist, presents two types of man of ability and self-esteem in her magnum opus (Sciabarra, 1995, p. 96). One is the man who refuses to surrender his freedom, rejects the concept of altruism, and upholds self-esteem and self-interest, while the other is the man who, despite being stripped of his liberty and immolated for the common good, still holds on to a faint belief that one day, the system would change for the better. The first represents Francisco D’Anconia, an heir to a giant copper mining company who built his own empire from scratch, while the second represents Henry Rearden, a steel read more…
