My own blogging ethics: As a blogger, I respect other people’s rights (e.g., their right to intellectual property, copyright, privacy, etc.) and I expect others to respect mine as well. Since I own this blogsite, and I expect my readers and commenters to follow or abide by my house rules.
Note: The Vincenton Post is formerly called Ideological Soup. This site is owned by Froilan Vincent (his chosen name). The blogger’s real name is Froilan Vincent D. Bersamina. This transition is not merely lexical; it is primarily intellectual and philosophical. This blog is dedicated to the promotion of individualism, laissez faire capitalism, and the philosophy of Objectivism in the Philippines, a country which is a product of history. In order to have a definite national direction, a nation must have a rational intellectual leadership. This country must be guided by a rational individualist philosophy whose metaphysics is objective reality, whose epistemology is reason, whose politics is capitalism, and whose ethics is self-interest. Without a rational culture, education system and ‘national consciousness’ that are hinged on the concept of individualism, this nation cannot achieve a “new renaissance.” This blog banners the value of Honesty, Objectivity and Integrity. The first means intellectual honesty. In dealing with any kind of social, political or economic issues, The Vincenton Post does not recognize the value of blind compromise, the absurd idea of middle-ground, and the creepy scowl of the not-quite, the not-yet and the not-at-all. Like Ayn Rand wrote:
“There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.”
Intellectual honesty means one must not hesitate to attack an issue according to its value or non-value, and that one must not be afraid to confront criticisms by blind supporters of an evil social agenda whose value and concept they miserably failed to grasp. Objectivity primarily pertains to Aristotle’s law of identity- that A is A. An issue must be judged not merely on its objective concept, but also on how it responds to reality. In journalistic terms, it is the goal of The Vincenton Post to make an objective evaluation of reality. Man’s knowledge expands by observing reality, but it is important that the stimuli be taken objectively, and that the observer be guided by reason and logic, which is defined as an art of non-contradictory identification. Thus, Objectivity means ideas, opinions and concepts expressed in this blogsite must be clear, comprehensible and free from contradictions and vague generalities.
Finally, Integrity means The Vincenton Post seeks to keep the moral principles of individualism and to uphold only those that make life possible. It does not take compromise or any absurd idea of middle-ground as an option. In a struggle to advance the cause of freedom and man’s rights, compromise is never a necessary evil- it is evil at best. The Vincenton Post offers a choice not an echo. This country and the rest of the world are moving toward collectivism or socialism. The only way to stop this evil, immoral trend is to embrace the right choice- the philosophy of Objectivism, the concept of Individualism, the economic system of Capitalism.
Pardon my pretension, but so far, The Vincenton Post is the best proof that most people, most especially the so-called intellectuals, college professors, and media opinion peddlers, in the Philippines do not truly, genuinely understand how Capitalism as a political-economic system works! However, I do not claim to speak for Objectivism; my errors, where they may be found, are my own.
My primary purpose in creating and maintaining this blogsite is purely selfish in nature. When I created this blogsite, I never thought of other people, what they might say, how they would react and behave, and what they would think of the person behind it—I only thought of my desire to express my mind, to express the word “I”. Every word or sentence on this blog is an expression of my ego, and every entry reflects my consciousness, my views, beliefs, and convictions. I write commentaries not to preach, because I don’t believe that it is my primary duty to be concerned with others, but to express the things that I strongly believe in. My goal as a blogger is not to please everybody, because pleasing everybody is impossible. You can’t please other people without losing your soul and sense of self. If the purpose of a blogger is to ‘go with the flow’ and agree with the so-called collective mindset, then I would have to stop writing. Like Victor Hugo said: “If a writer wrote merely for his time, I would have to break my pen and throw it away.” This blogsite expresses my personality; it is the reflection of my consciousness.
I do believe that every person consciously or unconsciously holds a certain form of philosophy. Man cannot live without philosophy. He needs a specific or random way of reasoning, whether good or bad, mediocre or reasonable, to tie his beliefs and convictions. With this, I am forever inspired by the following quotation from my favorite book Atlas Shrugged:
“In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.”
Let me state it here, that of all the kinds and forms of smear or criticism, I most disgust and resent dishonesty, whether intellectual, ideological or metaphysical. Any critic who resorts to dishonesty- that is, by arguing his cause by means of dropping the context of your premise or statement, or resorting to adhominem attack- has nary a sane, proper argument to adduce. I have seen a lot of their kind online, the kind of people who borrow disgusting statements from absurd intellectuals and use them against you.
For instance, I have a lot of commenters who called me names and even described me as a member of the so-called Ayn Rand cult. This dishonest attack was perpetrated by a former student of Ayn Rand named Murray Rothbard who later called her a ‘cultist.’ After he was ‘excommunicated’ from the Objectivist circle, Rothbard formed his own Libertarian-Anarcho-capitalist circle and wrote a book denouncing Ayn Rand as the high priestess of a secular cult. Now this is a good example of a dishonest attack designed to simply destroy the reputation of a person. I’ve also seen a number of commenters who called me names like “intellectual masturbater.” This malicious, empty charge is both funny and pathetic. This means that a person who graduated from an average school has no business talking about philosophy, ideology, or man’s intellect, and that the intellectual domain exclusively belongs to the intellectuals, academics, college professors.
There were also a number of commenters who urged me to “drop my ideology,” and embrace what they call “real facts” or “reality-based data or statistics.” Although I did not exactly understand how they used the word “ideology” (if it were related to intellect or way of thinking), I thought that they didn’t want me to think. These people simply forgot that we deal with ideas, and that we embrace a certain premise. For instance, one commenter urged me to argue my cause regarding the Reproductive Health Bill by dropping “my ideology” and use only facts and statistics to prove that “overpopulation is not the problem.” With all honesty, I believe that you cannot argue a certain issue without relying on a particular premise, unless you go by emotion and the whim of the moment. The premise of my argument against the RH Bill is based on “individual rights”, that this legislative proposal is impractical and immoral because it disregards man’s inalienable rights, and that it seeks the sacrifice and the immolation of the good to the weak, although this is not explicitly stated in the bill, but this is only the means to achieve its ends.
Those who resent you for upholding a specific, strong idea simply believe that nothing in this world is absolute, that that there is no such thing as objective or exact word, that everything we perceive is not real but a product of our mental distortion, that there are no such things as bad and good ideas, but only floating abstractions, and that man’s mind is impotent and subservient to what they call collective mentality. These same people unwittingly believe that the world has not improved, that we did not achieve this stage in history where men enjoy technological and intellectual stability by improving or changing our way of thought. In regard to this, I strongly believe with the following quotation by Will and Ariel Durant:
“Civilization is not inherited; it has to be learned and earned by each generation anew; if the transmission should be interrupted for one century, civilization would die, and we should be savages again.”
The great men from the Age of the Enlightenment who ended the Dark Ages of the mystics and the religionists, were able to prove that reason exists, and that man’s mind improves and develops by observing reality. You start with what exists and never take things or issues on faith. They were able to prove that man’s mind is his only tool of cognition and that reason is his only absolute. You tackle a particular issue by using reason, a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. You understand things by means of logic, which should be defined as the art of non-contradictory identification. Logic means A is A- that you cannot contradict reality and that reality is independent of a man’s consciousness, beliefs, or convictions. A is A is the formula of Aristotle’s Law of Identity, which states that an object is the same as itself. You cannot ask a person to “drop his mind” to tackle an issue. Again, man’s mind is a tool of cognition and reason is his only absolute.
I am not a scholar of Objectivism, I am merely a student of Objectivism.
I’m on Facebook and you can ADD ME UP!
About my concept of morality, you can check it here.
For those interested, you may join our Causes/groups on Facebook:
For those who read, loved, and reacted to the articles on this site, thanks for paying a visit. For those who hated it, get real! I always tell them, “check your premises…”
I don’t delete comments if someone disagrees with me. It’s his/her right to disagree with me. But I do when the comments are rude and crude since this is my private property. I have a right to do so. It’s not an issue of ideology, but of manners. I reject the modern conception of manners; I don’t have to engage in conversation with, or offer a service to, anyone who doesn’t know how to disagree with me politely.