In my view the collision of singularities this cowboy philosopher posits, have their beginning in Europe with Martin Luther's attempt to equate Selbstlichkeit to the Judaic notion of Original Sin. The inherent failing in this view, is that the Judaic account of G_d has Him existing alone, experiencing pleasure in the goodness of His own…
In my view the collision of singularities this cowboy philosopher posits, have their beginning in Europe with Martin Luther's attempt to equate Selbstlichkeit to the Judaic notion of Original Sin. The inherent failing in this view, is that the Judaic account of G_d has Him existing alone, experiencing pleasure in the goodness of His own creations, and sharing none of those pleasures with anyone, until He bothered to create some living beings with whom to share the joys of living. Luther's construction taken literally makes G_d a sinner, for He was selfish and did not immediately share. Luther papered over this objection by following a Greek tradition of dividing G_d into three Persons, who thus shared with each other.
Alyssa Rosenbaum some five centuries later, writing under her pen name Ayn Rand, openly claimed to be atheist while leaving signs of her respect for Judaism scattered throughout her nonfiction writing. Rand bluntly asserted Selfishness a virtue and not a vice, demonstrating how rational self interest joined with personal choice, had improved every aspect of human life. Yet she too described a subset of behaviors, described in her fiction as a variety of evils, then in her later nonfiction as Subjectivism, whose opposite is her philosophical school, Objectivism.
The danger the Subjectivist poses to his neighbors, is that it only matters to him that he wins the argument and emerges with control over others.
The Objectivist by contrast, truly does not give a flying **** who figures out what the truth is. Most important to the Objectivist is learning what's true, because Reality behaves according to what is true about Reality, and not what we imagine about Reality. Confusing Up with Down before letting go of a climbing rope on a mountain can have lethal consequences.
The Subjectivist is often so driven by vanity that he will put his life and the lives of others at risk, to preserve the self-delusion that he knows best, when in fact he may know nothing. Revisiting Luther's experience of corruption within the Christian clergy in the 15th Century, the evils he actually experienced were a kind of secular Subjectivism in politics ("I'm the King. I want it. Gimme it now or I'll chop your head off and take it") that corrupt Bishops fostered by a second level of Subjectivism ("The King rules by divine right. When two kings dispute something, God grants to the winning king victory in battle and the losing king is shown the limits to his power...but we Bishops can save both kings from a divine curse for the sin of killing people over land or money, by accepting a gift of money or land from each of them, made to the Church"). Rather than explain to kings the difference between right and wrong, corrupt Church leaders cashed in on the profits while peasants lost everything in taxes to fund the constant wars.
The problem with Luther's "selbstlichkeit" is that it completely ignores all the good that is done by learning what's good for ourselves. Just as G_d was alone at the beginning of His creation. just as He alone was first to make and see light and to see that it was good, we as pre-verbal infants are alone in human society. We experience love when we are fed and comforted, but we are not capable of sharing that because we lack the capacity to return these gifts.
Wanting things for ourselves is thus not evil. And there is no necessary conflict with others over what we each want. All the war and other political violence between people over who wants something, arises from the idea of Entitlement, a belief that "our people deserve more than your people".
It is Entitlement that drives Elitists in search of the transhumanist Great Reset of life on Earth. A planet overrun by mindless bots that wait upon the Elite, who spend most of their time in Subjectivist entertainments like the massively-narcissistic Metaverse, never requires an Elitist to ask Please nor say a heartfelt Thank You for the kindness of another human. He lives out his lonely existence behind a virtual reality helmet.
I think where I disagree with this Singularity theory, is that nothing is inevitable about the choice between Objectivism and Subjectivism. Both choices are constantly present. Neither outcome is permanent. And falsehood always falls way to truth, because truth remains true whether we believe it or not, but falsehood morphs constantly under the force of reality.
In my view the collision of singularities this cowboy philosopher posits, have their beginning in Europe with Martin Luther's attempt to equate Selbstlichkeit to the Judaic notion of Original Sin. The inherent failing in this view, is that the Judaic account of G_d has Him existing alone, experiencing pleasure in the goodness of His own creations, and sharing none of those pleasures with anyone, until He bothered to create some living beings with whom to share the joys of living. Luther's construction taken literally makes G_d a sinner, for He was selfish and did not immediately share. Luther papered over this objection by following a Greek tradition of dividing G_d into three Persons, who thus shared with each other.
Alyssa Rosenbaum some five centuries later, writing under her pen name Ayn Rand, openly claimed to be atheist while leaving signs of her respect for Judaism scattered throughout her nonfiction writing. Rand bluntly asserted Selfishness a virtue and not a vice, demonstrating how rational self interest joined with personal choice, had improved every aspect of human life. Yet she too described a subset of behaviors, described in her fiction as a variety of evils, then in her later nonfiction as Subjectivism, whose opposite is her philosophical school, Objectivism.
The danger the Subjectivist poses to his neighbors, is that it only matters to him that he wins the argument and emerges with control over others.
The Objectivist by contrast, truly does not give a flying **** who figures out what the truth is. Most important to the Objectivist is learning what's true, because Reality behaves according to what is true about Reality, and not what we imagine about Reality. Confusing Up with Down before letting go of a climbing rope on a mountain can have lethal consequences.
The Subjectivist is often so driven by vanity that he will put his life and the lives of others at risk, to preserve the self-delusion that he knows best, when in fact he may know nothing. Revisiting Luther's experience of corruption within the Christian clergy in the 15th Century, the evils he actually experienced were a kind of secular Subjectivism in politics ("I'm the King. I want it. Gimme it now or I'll chop your head off and take it") that corrupt Bishops fostered by a second level of Subjectivism ("The King rules by divine right. When two kings dispute something, God grants to the winning king victory in battle and the losing king is shown the limits to his power...but we Bishops can save both kings from a divine curse for the sin of killing people over land or money, by accepting a gift of money or land from each of them, made to the Church"). Rather than explain to kings the difference between right and wrong, corrupt Church leaders cashed in on the profits while peasants lost everything in taxes to fund the constant wars.
The problem with Luther's "selbstlichkeit" is that it completely ignores all the good that is done by learning what's good for ourselves. Just as G_d was alone at the beginning of His creation. just as He alone was first to make and see light and to see that it was good, we as pre-verbal infants are alone in human society. We experience love when we are fed and comforted, but we are not capable of sharing that because we lack the capacity to return these gifts.
Wanting things for ourselves is thus not evil. And there is no necessary conflict with others over what we each want. All the war and other political violence between people over who wants something, arises from the idea of Entitlement, a belief that "our people deserve more than your people".
It is Entitlement that drives Elitists in search of the transhumanist Great Reset of life on Earth. A planet overrun by mindless bots that wait upon the Elite, who spend most of their time in Subjectivist entertainments like the massively-narcissistic Metaverse, never requires an Elitist to ask Please nor say a heartfelt Thank You for the kindness of another human. He lives out his lonely existence behind a virtual reality helmet.
I think where I disagree with this Singularity theory, is that nothing is inevitable about the choice between Objectivism and Subjectivism. Both choices are constantly present. Neither outcome is permanent. And falsehood always falls way to truth, because truth remains true whether we believe it or not, but falsehood morphs constantly under the force of reality.