Category Archives: Objectivism

Beer, Fire, and on Being a Saber-Toothed Tiger’s Dinner

Posted on by
Reply
Share

For context, you have to read this post first: Important Things, Useless Things, and Beer.

While it may be true that the big things matter most, the real genius of living with virtue is mastering what those things are.  In the story from my last post, the teacher says that family, health, friends, and favorite passions are the large stones, the things that matter most.  Isn’t that a bit prescriptive?  How does he know, and what gives him the right to tell me what are the “large stones” in my life?

So, telling me that there are things that should be important to me and things that shouldn’t be important is somewhat helpful, although not very specific.  On the other hand telling me what should be important to ME, is quite specific, but a bit presumptuous, no?

But isn’t it just common sense that your family would be one of those big things?  Let’s look a little closer.  What if you have raised your child one way, and she decides to go another?  What if she provides you no respect whatsoever?  As an adult, this descendant of yours has cut you off. Should I force my will upon her?  Do I invite her to Thanksgiving dinner no matter what?  Do I try to establish an intimate father/daughter relationship regardless of her impudence?  What are the factors that led to our estrangement?  Couldn’t they be a series of “little things?”  What if you are a firefighter, and you are called to extinguish a blaze during your own family holiday gathering?  Do you say, “Hey man, family is way more important, you are going to have to find somebody else!”?

As I think about “The Stones in a Jar” story more and more, I am starting to doubt its usefulness.  This poor professor thinks there is a whole jar full of “big things” and “little things.”  He thinks family, health, friends, and passions are large stones.  What he has missed is that these things are actually lumped collections of “little things.”  They are clumps of sand…they are the seemingly unimportant things that together make the whole of my life.  To say that family, friends, health and passions are important is fair, but to call them big things might not be all that helpful advice for leading a virtuous life.

We tend to be like this as humans, we like to categorize things as big things and little things.  I think it was necessary for our survival.  A saber-toothed tiger about to pounce on us is a big thing.  Whether to build a fire out of maple or oak, might be a much smaller thing.  In any case, couldn’t you classify either in the family, friends, health or passions column?  It is very hard to have any of them when you are dinner for a predator.  As far as building that fire, doesn’t that provide welfare for your family/friends, and maybe provide you with the warmth and light to pursue your passion?  Doesn’t building a fire keep you healthy by allowing you to cook, keeping you warm, and warding off saber-toothed tigers?

The devil is in the details, isn’t it?  The fact of the matter is that the “big things” are nothing more than a collection of little things, aren’t they?  In my humble opinion there are very few big things, indeed.  When it comes down to it, the big things (the “large stones”) are the concepts that guide my life and my philosophy.  I can think of three categories of them:

As an alternative story to the “Jar of Stones” (and a much shorter one), maybe we can view things as a series of “clay projects.”  I think maybe the 3 concepts above could represent the water.  With this water, I can mix in the little things, the sand, and create my big things.  When you have water, all you have is water.  When you have sand, all you have is sand.  When you artfully mix them, you can build, mold, fashion many “bigger things” with the clay you’ve formed.

…including family, friends, health, and passions.

An End to War…World Peace is Possible!

Posted on by
Reply
Share

I want to fix the world, it’s really messed up.  Sometimes I think I can.  A lot of people do.  A special class of people who think they can fix everybody’s problems pretty much all the time, are the politicians.  They think that they can make the world a better place by compelling others to fit their view of the perfect world.  I suppose there will always be those who think that not only do they know better, but they can force people to accept their view.  These people are annoying when I meet them, but they are dangerous when they have power (like those in the government).

You will agree with me, I will make you!

But that’s not me.  I DO know better (just ask me), but I reject the notion that I can force any individual to think the way I think.  In fact, this is a fundamental belief that I have:  that I have no right to compel any person to think, do, or not do anything, as long as they are not interfering with another person’s life, liberty, or property.

A few days ago, I posted a short quote from a Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hahn, about how the roots of war are within us each individually.  You can read it here.  I’ll admit, I purposely posted it to foreshadow this post.  I already had a general idea of what I wanted to share about how the individual mind is where the “seeds” of peace are planted.  Just like Thich Nhat Hahn, I feel that peace is best won by changing the individual, not the masses.  Moreover, that change is a result of persuasion and then introspection, not coercion.  That’s the way I share here.  I throw some seeds out to you, and if you can see the logic, then the seeds germinate into an idea or some enlightenment.

So here’s the seed I’m throwing today.  If an individual can be at peace with herself, then she has peace in her own world.  You see, peace is in your own thought, in your view of life.  If more and more people find tranquility for themselves, less conflict will occur among groups of people.

World Peace…One Post at a Time (Get it?)

So, I guess that’s my goal; lead one person at a time to tranquility one post at a time, one page view at a time.  The Stoic hero accepts what is around him.  He has a tranquil mind because he recognizes that nothing is permanent, but still has a duty to himself to maintain his integrity.  The Stoic hero I envision also recognizes that each individual has a right to choose their path, even if it means misfortune for that person.  As I try to be like this hero, I can try to help as much as I can, but in the end each individual is responsible for their own destiny.

I will never forget the power of individual liberty–this is from my personal creed.

World peace, one mind at a time.  Go internet!

 

 

You are completely in control of your life…and no one else’s!

Posted on by
Reply
Share

In my frantic preparations to produce content this morning I was frenetically reading through some of my favorite writings of philosophy and inspiration.  Finally, I came upon Dale Carnegie’s How To Win Friends and Influence People.

I just want you all to know that I LOVE this book.  In dealing with people, I have found no better guide.  I have read it twice fully and have reviewed the principles so many times, I could not even begin to guess the number.  Chapter 1, “Don’t Kick Over the Beehive,” tells us how ineffective criticism and condemnation is.  Essentially, we don’t respond well to it.  So, that got me thinking.

Why is criticism so ineffective?  I will say that my answer is that I don’t respond to it, because I am unwilling to change simply because someone else wants me to.   For me to change the way I think about things, it must be my idea.  “Nobody’s gonna tell me what to do!”  Nobody’s gonna tell me what I should do!  That decision is up to me.  If it’s not my idea, I don’t respond very well.

Don’t tell me what to do! Don’t tell ME I’m wrong!

So, try and ask yourself this question (even if someone else may have brought it to your attention):  If this is the way I should live, why am I not living this way?

For example, I’ve realized that I don’t spend enough quality time with my kids.  I’ve examined why this is so:  I work, I am tired, they are boring, I don’t like what they like, they are busy, etc.  In the end, however, my values tell me that I should spend time with my kids as a father, teaching them what I know, playing with them more, etc.  Somebody can tell me, “You work too much, and your kids need you,” but I am the only one who can change the situation.  So in order to change this I must commit:  from now on, I will spend more time with my kids.  Even better, I can be more specific:

  • I will spend 45 minutes every day learning Spanish with my kids (which, in fact I now do).
  • When my children are speaking to me, I will stop what I am doing and listen, or I will politely tell them, “come back to me in XX minutes when I finish this, OK?” (this one is definitely a challenge for me).

My point today, is not that we should avoid criticizing others (which we probably should), or that we should increase the time we spend teaching our children (which we definitely should).   My point is this (repeat it to yourself if you wish):

  1. If I know I should be living my life a certain way, only I can make that choice to do so.
  2. If this is what I should do, then I must do it.

Tactical Optimism and Strategic Pessimism

Posted on by
Reply
Share

I was listening to the Morning in America radio show several years ago, and Bill Bennett, the host said something like this:  “I am a tactical optimist, and a strategic pessimist.  We are all ashes in the end, but we wake up each morning and figure out how to move the ball each day.”

This is a profound and rich quote, full of allusions to sport, religion, and military maneuver, not to mention a little Stoic wisdom (most likely by accident…not sure Dr. Bennett is a Stoic).

In essence, this phrase captures how a Heroic Stoic would live.  Yes, in the end tragedy will befall us, including our own and everyone else’s death, but that does not mean we shouldn’t serve, build, and create anyway.

Tactical Optimism for the Long Trip Ahead – I’m confident I can make it to that next tree. After that, more trees!

The Stoic knows that nothing lasts forever, and that much is out of her control.  However, she continues on and works on those things that she can control.  Moreover, to be a hero she would indeed contribute for the sake of her own excellence, for the very sake of accomplishing the task.  For those who wish to take advantage of her productive endeavors, she will willingly engage in trade with them.

Right now, millions of people are currently grasping for more, or wallowing in self-pity, or even thinking that they deserve something from “the man,” from life, or from those who have the ability to help them.  Many others are happy with the illusion that tragedy will somehow miss them.  Many have never heard of the Stoics, and others might not agree with the individual-centered philosophy of Ayn Rand.  It is my view that this will probably remain the case; neither Stoic philosophy nor individualism seem to be anywhere close to be being described as “en vogue.”  It is the default position of human nature to ignore the suffering around us rather than face it head-on.  Moreover, it is a very common trait of humans to attribute one’s station in life as the fault of another, or of society in general.  In the end, the great majority will never embrace a Heroic Stoic lifestyle, no matter what I do, write, or say.

Strategic Pessimism – Those trees will be ashes soon enough.

Despite all of this, I write about these topics.  I believe in the power of Heroic Stoicism, and hopefully I can move the ball forward just a little today, tomorrow, and every day.  Even though most of YOU out there will not truly embrace what I say, I write about what I believe, because I think it will HELP YOU.

That’s because I am a tactical optimist, despite the fact that I am a strategic pessimist.

Was Robin Hood a Good Guy? Was He Altruistic?

Posted on by
4
Share

WARNING:  THE TALE OF ROBIN HOOD HAS EVOLVED, THERE ARE MANY VERSIONS AND NO SINGLE AUTHOR…IN ESSENCE, IT IS A FOLK TALE.  MY ENTRY IS BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING (i.e. VERSION).
MANY… …VERSIONS!

Here is a short synopsis of my version:  Robin Hood has a band of Merry Men, who steal from a usurping tyrant king (Prince John) who takes property forcefully from the citizens through a “tax.”  Robin and his band then distribute the loot to those who in fact earned it in the first place.  In the end, a new king (King Richard) returns and everyone is happy because he is a “just” ruler (what life is like after King Richard returns is unknown…in any case, he represents a more fair government).  Oh…and there is Robin’s love interest as well (Maid Marion).

Which means I agree with the blue text of this image, which I recently posted on Facebook:

Note: The red text is actually a false statement about the story.  In fact, Robin did steal from the rich and give to the poor.  I’ll provide a better caption below, but read on…

So anyway, I posted that photo above on facebook.  Well, I now know that at least one of my friends read my blog, because sure enough, based on my previous Altruism post one of them asked, “but was he altruistic?”  Well that is a darn good question, but it also leads to another question, “Was he good?”

So, let’s start with the second question first.  Is Robin Hood a good guy?  More precisely, in the context of the story, is stealing from whom he was stealing a good or a bad action?  First, let’s check the premise.  Does Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor?–Yes.  Did these rich obtain their wealth through their own hard work and by providing value to someone else, or did they steal their riches through force?  I say the latter.  So, assuming Robin Hood is taking from the rich ruler who obtained his riches by threatening force upon a populace (i.e. robbery), then I would say that indeed Robin Hood’s actions were noble.

Notice that my judgment is based on looking at the issue at hand deeper than a topical news media headline:  “Robin Hood Works for Common Man, Takes from Fat Cats and Gives to Poor!”  In fact, when you look a degree or two deeper, you find that, “Robin Hood Locates Thieves of Citizens’ Riches, Returns Goods Back to Rightful Owners!”   Language is very powerful, more powerful than even logic.  Most of the time, most of us (including me), don’t take much time to evaluate a situation.  Most of the time, we can be manipulated by slogans and catchy words.

OK, according to my version of the story (not that he simply stole from the rich to give to the poor, but that he returned to the citizens what an oppressive ruler took from them), Robin performed a good act.  So, assuming his actions are good, were they altruistic?

I would argue that he is not altruistic for these reasons.

  1. In many versions of the story, Robin benefits from the patronage of King Richard, The Lion-Hearted (the “good” King).  He may be looked upon as holding down the fort until Richard returned and brought a just society.
  2. The citizens are immensely grateful for his services.  He can feel good about the service that he performs for them.
  3. This “gratefulness” gives Robin a type of defacto power (power is a big incentive for many).  He is an elder of the people.
  4. Maid Marion – his actions get him the girl (our reproductive drive is a HUGE motivator…somebody should remind me to post on that later)
  5. I’m sure there are more, can you think of any?

I would like to return to the “steal from the rich give to the poor” moral of the story.  If indeed Robin Hood was stealing from a rich person just because they have “too much” and those who are poor “deserve it,” this would not be a righteous action without knowing the premises (for example, the premise that the “rich” were actually “criminals”).

So here’s my suggestion for a more truthful caption to the image above:  Pay Attention!  While Robin Hood did steal from the rich and give to the poor, what made his actions justifiable were that he took people’s stolen stuff BACK from an oppressive CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT and gave it to the people that produced and OWNED the stuff in the first place!!  The fact that his victims were rich and benefactors were poor, did not justify his actions!!

And now you see, why I have no future in writing headlines or political slogans.

What are your thoughts?