Not logged in. Log in.

Blog / Philosophy

4 blog entries found. Displaying 1–4.

  • « Prev
  • 1
  • Next »

Racism vs Multiculturalism = False Dichotomy

You often see debates between those who favour racism/ethno-nationalism/religious nationalism, and those who favour multiculturalism/tolerance, as if these represent two ends of a spectrum.

It's the short-sighted, backwards desire to preserve (i.e. enforce) racial, ideological or cultural hegemony within a given geographical area, versus the naive, careless and dangerous desire to tolerate any and all cultures.

The value of a specific group, versus the value of all groups indiscriminitely.

However, these two positions are two sides of the same coin. One type of collectivism vs all kinds of collectivism. The former is a misallocation of value - seeing value in something which possesses none. The latter is a rejection of value altogether - promoting diversity for diversity's sake.

Individualism is the true alternative to these two doctrines. The appreciation of value in individuals, as individuals.

A Neat Annihilation of Racism

I've been debating on these past few weeks, and I just posted what I regard as one of my most succinct yet crushing arguments against racism/ethno-nationalism.

After a long back-and-forth speaking in terms of abstractions; the concept of race, definitions of pride, whether race is a scientifically valid category etc. I decided to finally boil everything down to a real-world choice. I asked him to state whether he'd prefer a violent, leftist, moron of a white person who opposes all of his beliefs, or a well-mannered, friendly black person who is sympathetic to his beliefs. He hasn't responded yet at the time of writing this, but it's possible he'll resort to the ridiculous "genes are valuable in and of themselves" argument - suggesting that genes are valuable by virtue of their existence, and not because of any actual observable effects that they have. That's the only thing he can do other than admitting defeat, as I see it.

My post went as follows:

I'll elaborat… continue reading

Sun Tzu's Art of War

“If your enemy is watching your knife, spoon out his eye.”

I watched a History Channel documentary on Sun Tzu's Art of War yesterday, and whilst the above quote didn't come from Sun Tzu (indeed, I myself lay claim to that little parcel of wisdom) it was very, very interesting. I've read the Art of War, however the documentary successfully extracted some of the most prominent strategic ideas and applied to them to historical conflicts ranging from ancient China, to the American Civil War, to World War II, to Vietnam.

I'd recommend the documentary to anyone with even a slight interest in military strategy or historical conflict.

Anarcho-Capitalism: An Objectivist's Critique

This is my first video for YouTube which is political/philosophical in nature:

The political goal of both Objectivists and anarcho-capitalists is: To ban violence/coercion/the initiation of force in human relationships. The two disagree on what the best political system is to achieve this goal. Objectivism proposes the need for a government to monopolise the use of retaliatory force. Anarcho-capitalists see this monopoly as itself being an initiation of force. It's not.

A monopoly on retaliatory force is required because the non-initiation of force is not optional or debatable; it is the very principle which both systems claim to be aiming to uphold. Allowing competition is effectively saying that the non-aggression principle is optional, as it allows private agencies to decide which laws and principles they want to follow, regardless of whether they are correct.

The point of an Objectivist government is to eliminate this subjectivity; not because those in a government are somehow "more o… continue reading
  • « Prev
  • 1
  • Next »