A-Creed Or Dis-A-Creed?

Do we unfairly judge others based on their personal creeds?

I refer to two situations from recent personal experience to illustrate:

Occupy Wall Street
In a recent Facebook discussion, I voiced the opinion that I neither side with "Wall Street banks" nor with "the other 99%." What I mean is that there is always marketplace responsibility held by all market agents. That one party is rich or poor should not change the fundamental fact that we must all take responsibility for our own actions. I further provided the opinion that the primary problem in the Wall Street situation is the forever-growing money supply, and that bankers are as much victims of that policy as are the rest of us.

I do not expect everyone to agree with me, however in the context of that discussion my comments were met by the assumption that I am a conservative and that - because I consider government salaries another form of bailout - I am anti-public-school-teachers.

Faithful Stationary Waves readers know that I am not a conservative, and any participant in that discussion could easily note that I have nothing against teachers. In fact, my primary point was that we are all victims of monetary policy.

But to those who are only used to hearing the "liberal" versus the "conservative" views, I must be placed in a specific box. I don't agree with them, therefore I must be placed in whatever box they see as being the "not them" box. In this case, it was the "conservative" box, but it need not have been.

Insulin Pumps
In a separate conversation, in a roomful of type 1 diabetics, I expressed my frustration over my experience with insulin pump therapy. I went out of my way to acknowledge that pump therapy is a boon and a great course of therapy for many diabetics - but that the therapy had not worked for me, and that I expect my health care team to acknowledge this.

For the most part, folks empathized. There were one or two, however, who insisted that the settings were simply wrong on the pump, that the pump takes time to get used to, and that it provides superior blood sugar control.

For those whose experience is not the same as mine, my comments were tantamount to an outright universal rejection of pump therapy for all diabetics, period. Of course, I absolutely do not feel that way, but they thought so.

All Those Who Disagree Are: (A) Stupid, (B) Evil, (C) Political Foes, or (D) All of the Above?
On an intuitive level, we understand that disagreeing with a self-described liberal does not make one a conservative, and that opting out of a particular medical therapy for personal reasons is not the same thing as feeling that the medical therapy itself is garbage.

Somehow, though, society's tolerance for disagreements seems to have reached an all-time low. Any level of disagreement quickly disintegrates into all parties mutually self-affirming the belief that all who disagree are the enemy.

We've locked ourselves into a situation where we see disagreement itself as the problem, i.e. the fact that someone disagrees with us tells us the whole story; why they disagree is completely irrelevant. More to the point, we assume we know everything about why someone disagrees with us as soon as we note that there is a disagreement.

My Old Friend: The Creed
We are quite accustomed to fighting stereotypes when it comes to race, gender, culture, age, and so forth. We desperately need to rid ourselves of bigotry that pertains to creed.

A person's creed can refer to any of their beliefs, really. The word "creed" need not refer solely to political ideology or religious belief. To always tell the truth can be a creed; to always be respectful and kind. Adherence to Occam's razor can be a creed. And yes, one's opinions on financial bailouts or insulin pumps are part of your creed.

In all cases, when exposed to someone else's creed, if we even respect the value of common ground then we must work toward shrugging off our inherent prejudices about the creed in question. If all defenders of profit motive have about the same impact on your personal view of those people, then you should take some time to reevaluate your own prejudices. If anyone who disagrees with your taste in music is "one of those people," then you should probably re-think.

And let me be clear: Many of you who are reading this right now believe yourselves to be among the most open-minded people in the world. What I'd like to suggest is that - while we have all become practiced experts in being open-minded toward visible or tangible traits like race, gender, and so forth - we all have a long way to go before we are capable of being truly open-minded toward ideas.

Let's give it a try, anyway.

Trivia

It's entirely possible that you may stumble upon this blog during an internet search, read a post or two, encounter something you like, benefit from it, and move on. It is also entirely possible that you read this blog a dozen or more times and only ever discover one thing about the blog with which you "agree."

What you find on my blog is a repository of my own personal thoughts and opinions. Some of them prove to be highly controversial, either because my readers outright disagree with me or because they feel I've been unfair to "the other side" of the issue. But, believe it or not, the majority of what I write here consists of beliefs and information that I consider to be largely uncontroversial.

Something I often say is that my ideas are "an all-encompassing philosophy." Another way to say this is that everything I blog about represents an incarnation of my personal creed.

It may seem odd to think that diverse - and sometimes trivial - topics like the Guitar Exercise of the Week, running a marathon, and Ryan Ruins Requests have anything to do with the more serious things I blog about. But what I try to convey as I write my blog is the idea that a person's creed is their modus operandi, that it is important, that it must be built from the ground up, and that, once established, it guides that person through every activity in which he or she engages.

This all seems quite serious, and again begs the question why I also blog about such trivial things when promoting an existential idea is basically the whole point of the blog. I will now attempt to address this apparent gap.

Life Is Like a Movie Theater, Not a Movie
Walk through a movie theater and you will encounter some horror, some drama, some thrills; but, you will also encounter a lot of comedy and romance.

While it can be fun to spend a couple of hours watching a fictional drama about global politics, it would be a major drag to watch only political dramas all the time, and nothing else. Simply put, there's more to life than drama and seriousness. That's why we find ourselves seeking out different kinds of movies at different times, depending on how we feel. It's not just taste, it's mood.

It's mental state. There is a lot of room in the human brain, plenty of room to fill it with all kinds of information; some important, some trivial. But all of it is important.

If we don't take time to laugh about silly things, we won't be able to keep a handle on the serious things. If we don't wrestle with serious topics from time to time, then we soon run out of things to laugh at. I wish I could take credit for this idea, but it is in fact thousands of years old. Aristotle put it best when he said,

Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.

Philosophy Teaches Us About Life, Not Merely About "Deep" Things
Whatever else anyone may say about the content of Ayn Rand's philosophy, her view of philosophy itself is probably the clearest and most universally acceptable opinion she had. As she wrote in an essay called "The Chicken's Homecoming" (reprinted in a recent collection called Return of the Primitive):

The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. This view serves as a base, a frame of reference, for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or existential. This view tells him the nature of the universe with which he has to deal (metaphysics); the means by which he is to deal with it, i.e., the means of acquiring knowledge (epistemology); the standards by which he is to choose his goals and values, in regard to his own life and character (ethics)—and in regard to society (politics); the means of concretizing this view is given to him by esthetics.

The purpose of developing a personal creed is addressed by that first sentence, i.e. having a comprehensive view of life.

And when we talk about life, we mean all of it. Not just the serious stuff, but also art, humor, goofiness, quirkiness, zaniness, and everything else.

When you meet someone new, do you develop your relationship solely around their opinions of "life, the universe, and everything?" During the initial stages of a new relationship with any friend, coworker, or casual acquaintance, do you even know what their metaphysical beliefs are? Of course not! In fact, you can relate to a great many people without ever discussing anything serious with them at all. For many nourishing, important relationships, life's biggest questions never come up. Some people never cultivate a relationship to each other that extends beyond small talk.

It would be wrong to say that such relationships are trivial, meaningless, or unimportant. The reality is that we have as many different kinds of relationships as we have relationships. All of them contribute to our lives in an important way, and all of them shape our perspectives somehow.

Philosophy, and more importantly your creed, doesn't ignore these many relationships any more than it ignores the kookier things life offers. Having an understanding of one's own life means having an understanding of everything in it.

Your Creed
Therefore, your creed is that aspect of yourself that governs how you behave in both important and unimportant matters. What's important here is that situations and moods change, but creeds do not.

A well-developed creed will just as easily guide you through situations that are silly as it will through situations that are somber. It will act as a compass through all moments of your life, not just the ones that you consider the most weighty. It can serve as the fabric from which you weave all of your behavior.

While that isn't the main reason I promote the idea of creeds, it is certainly a major benefit!

My Creed
My creed involves all of the concepts captured on this blog, and all those which have yet to be captured on the blog. I run because it's fun, and having fun is part of my personal creed. I also run because it's a healthy activity, and capturing the quality of life gains from a healthy lifestyle is also part of my creed. I also run because it gives me time alone, during which I can think through the big questions I face from time to time, and introspection is also a part of my creed.

Get the picture? It's not about running any more than it's about Insipid Pop Weekend. It's not about serious stuff like politics and economics any more than it's about YouTube videos of Weird Al Yankovic songs.

Stationary Waves isn't about any of these things in isolation. It's about building a cohesive, consistent line of reasoning and a modus operandi by which I live my life. Sometimes it's serious, sometimes it's trivial. But it's always my creed.

That's the idea I'm going for here.

Paul Gregory's Wisdom and More About Creeds

Paul Gregory writes:

Compromise is not possible when there is no middle ground. It seems this truth escapes domestic and world politicians and pundits.

And concludes:

In democracies, we hope that elections will resolve such impasses. In authoritarian states, impasses are resolved by violence, not by diplomacy. 

Every day we pontificate to our friends, families, and colleagues that "compromise" is the only way forward, that "the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle," that "moderation in all things" can save the day. Such pontification goes on endlessly.

It is our egalitarian nature, our profound desire to be nice guys to each other, that inspires us to champion compromise and centrism for its own sake. No one wants to be the judgemental a-hole who finds fault in his fellow man. We should all strive to judge not, lest we be judged. Let those who be without sin cast the first stone. In general, judging is bad, while peace, love, and understanding is good.

Gregory notes that there are limits to how far we can take this ideal. If we're talking about one-on-one personal relationships or the victimless decisions of acquaintances, it is incredibly easy to avoid judgement, to recommend moderation, and to cultivate a saintly centrism. But this charade evaporates when life gets serious.

And it is a charade. Evading every call to stand by one's creed, to speak up for right and wrong, all in the name of not hurting someone's feelings, is a charade we undertake to present the image of sympathy where in fact there is none.

For what is sympathy? It is the feeling of compassion or concern for another, the wish to see them better off or happier. Concern implies that the other person could be better off. Better off implies a comparison to their feeling otherwise. Their feeling otherwise implies the existence of a situation that would create that result. And the preference of that situation to this one is, my friends, that terrible awful thing we demonize so much in our society: A value judgement!

Part of the reason I keep this blog is to help promote an idea that I feel we've lost somewhere over the past century or so: Maintaining a strong, personal creed or code of ethics is a vitally important aspect of human happiness and positive human relationships.

Taking a moral stance, even a seemingly harsh one, isn't cruel. Lording one's supposed moral superiority over someone else is cruel, but having a strong ideology and creed is very definitely not cruel. It is the very thing that moves us to sympathy, that enables us to help other people, that allows us to make the world a better place.

And unfortunately for the "moderation police" and the "judgementalism police" out there, there can be no compromise on a person's core ethical identity - their creed - without a corresponding compromise in that person's fundamental happiness.

You don't have to hold the same moral values I have, but I hope for your sake that you never, ever compromise on your own core ethics. There is no nobility in that kind of compromise. There is no truth to be found in that middle ground, and nothing laudable about that kind of centrism.

Ayn Rand once wrote, "In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." You're not doing anyone any favors by subverting your personal creed in an effort to avoid wounding another person's ego. The best, most inspiring way out of a bad situation is through a moral triumph. It's true that this sometimes requires taking a hard-line, but the long-run payoff for this is worth more than a few uncomfortable moments with someone who hasn't the courage to admit that morality implies judgement a priori. 

Drugs Part Three: A Personal Creed

If someone had told me a few months ago that taking a firm anti-drug stance would rub people the wrong way, I would have believed you easily. Our society is not intolerant of drug abuse. Our society tolerates it easily with a nudge and wink, perhaps a hug; then we pretend it will all go away.

But it hasn't gone away, not by a long shot, and this is one of the reasons I post on the topic so frequently.

One More Time, For the World!
The objections raised against what I wrote are as follows:

1. Some suggest that drugs are no different from food.
2. Some suggest that I cannot make an argument about a large group of people because a minority of them may have different motives than the ones I suggest. 
3. Some suggest that my comments are flippant because, after all, some people have serious problems that cannot easily be solved. 

What do all of these counter-arguments have in common? None of them (none of them) claim that drug use is good. None of them claim that drug use involves taking a productive step toward solving one's problems. None of them claim that drug use is act full of responsibility and consciousness.

In short, none of them actually refute any claim I've made about drug use. Understanding that, it is difficult to see what the real opposition is. 

Difficult, but not impossible.

What Are Ethics, And Why Should We Care?

As human beings, we want to reach out to those who are in difficult situations and help them. We want to dole out hugs, assistance, medical recommendations, psychological recommendations, and so forth. We want to be a listening ear, we want to provide kind words. Sympathy, understanding, forgiveness, and love are virtues that have been held in the highest esteem throughout human history.

But ethics is the study of moral right and wrong. It is not the function of ethics to dole out sympathy, forgiveness, and understanding.

An ethical code may result in the handing out of peace, love, and understanding, but behind all of those warm and fuzzy feelings lies something cold and unrelenting: A creed, a moral code.

Creeds in and of themselves do not dole out warm-fuzzies. Creeds are the logical backbone on which all of our moral decisions are based. They are the pattern into which we weave our moral sentiments. They are the map that tells us when we've done something right, and when we've done something wrong.

Throughout our lives, we have many opportunities to be a good friend. We also have ample opportunities to develop and stand up for our moral code.

If you are willing to embrace the full spectrum of human experiences, you must acknowledge a simple truth: there is a time in life for being a good friend; and there is a time in life when we develop our creed. Both human experiences are necessary to live out a complete existence.

He or she who would stamp out friendship for the sake of a moral code is a cold individual indeed. He or she who would throw aside their moral code in order to keep on good terms with someone truly has no moral code in practice.

Both, I repeat, both, are necessary for a fulfilling life.

The Flippant Caricature and What It Really Means That Right is Right
It is easy to make light of Stationary Waves in order to trivialize the ideas here. Because I philosophize running and music, and also philosophize ethics, we could dismiss the whole ball of yarn and say that "going for a run or picking up a guitar does not always solve the problem" when people make mistakes.

The question is, what solves the problem?

Recall that my original blog article about Amy Winehouse suggested that Winehouse's troubles began not with drug addiction but with her decision to do drugs the very first time.

My suggestion was that philosophy and courage could have solved her problem. She chose drugs. This was a bad decision, it was immoral, and it was just plain wrong.

Saying so is neither flippant nor "judgemental" in the sense that I sit on an ivory tower pronouncing judgements from a place of moral perfection. That I have made plenty of mistakes is both obvious, predictable, and beside the point.

When I err, I say so. When I fall short of my moral principles, I feel remorse, I work toward earning forgiveness, and I go forward in life trying not to repeat my mistakes. I gain a clear head and a clear conscience not by running or playing music, but by acknowledging my mistakes and endeavoring not to repeat them.

It's really pretty simple.

A couple of days ago, EF wrote:

if we want to seriously understand self-destructive behaviours such as drug addiction, we can’t just write people off by saying ‘they were weak and lazy and chose this and therefore they need to live with the consequences of their choices and I don’t give a crap about them because they didn’t care about themselves when they were smart enough to know better.’

I very much respect EF as a person, and when I say that (philosopher that I am), that means I also respect her views and her opinions. I don't honestly believe she and I fundamentally disagree on anything about this issue. What EF objects to is that the moral line-in-the-sand I've drawn doesn't seem very kind.

But this is my position as an ethicist. My position as a friend reflects all the kindness and compassion for friends in trouble that I am capable of (which, if I say so myself, is a lot).

The fact of the matter is that none of this matters on the ethical point. I can be kind or cruel, forgiving or relentless, open-minded or judgemental.

No matter how I behave when I say so, drug abuse will always be a moral travesty and a philosophical aberration. I can say so because it is true, and because only a fool would disagree.

What I mean to say is this: Taking a moral stand on an issue, no matter what the issue, no matter what the stance, puts you at risk of upsetting people who disagree. But our values are meaningless if we quickly throw them aside at the first sign of adversity. If we don't stand up for our values, no one else will.

If ethics have a place in our society at all, we owe it to ourselves to stand up for them. In doing so, we make firm conclusions about what is right and what is wrong. Simply verbalizing that drug abuse is wrong and that belching in public is disgraceful puts you up on the wall among those people who stand firm for what they believe, notwithstanding their own personal shortcomings.

But a belief is a belief, and having one doesn't diminish a person's compassion or humanity. It simply means that such people are willing to go on the record. Are you?

Conclusion: I May Be A Sinner, But I'm An Ethical Sinner
When I spoke out about Amy Winehouse, I did so because I believe that drugs are one of the most destructive forces in the world today. You may disagree, and probably do. Feel free to post your thoughts about this in the comments section, or on your own blog.

Do I have compassion for Amy Winehouse? No, I do not. How can I? I never knew her. She is yet another in a long line of people who threw their lives away for the sake of a philosophical aberration. I do not have compassion for that.

Have I known anyone in Winehouse's position? Well, I never met anyone who over-dosed (if she over-dosed), but I have known plenty of addicts, and my beliefs speak from that experience. It isn't just the user who suffers from addiction; it is also the hearts and souls of every person whose lives they touch.

We can give any amount of effort and support to an addict. The one, universal truth of addiction treatment - the lone prerequisite for successful rehabilitation - is that the addict wants to be healed. Unless and until that happens, compassion and love are meaningless.

According to the world as I see it - my creed - philosophy comes first, human relationships second. A creed is logically prior to all relationships, and colors every human interaction.

Face it, folks: we need ethics.

That's why I write.

Tact

Shrinking Vocabularies And Disappearing Concepts
Ever since George Orwell introduced the concept of a steadily shrinking vocabulary in his masterpiece, 1984, people have been pointing it out. It is probably difficult to find hard evidence that society's vocabulary is actually shrinking, though, since new words are added to the major English dictionaries all the time. Of course, this doesn't even cover the hundreds of informal and slang words that have crept into the contemporary lexicon as mainstays. To those of us who like to read classic literature, there is no positive comparison to be made between words like "levity" versus words like "lol," but from the standpoint of linguistic evolution, we can't really say much. Language evolves according to majority use, not according to the subjective preferences of bookworms. Sad but true.

Be that as it may, there can be no denying the fact that, as certain words and phrases fall out of favor, sometimes the concepts behind them also disappear. One such concept about which I have previously written is the concept of a person's creed. Prior to the last half of the 20th Century, virtually everyone knew what it meant to live by a creed; if one uses the term nowadays, though, the result isn't much more than some funny looks. Still, one can still live by a creed, even if one doesn't really understand that particular word anymore. The concept has not completely disappeared, although it is certainly waning.

The Disappearance of Tact
Apparently, the opposite is true for the word tact. That is, everyone knows what the definition of the word is, but nobody understands the concept anymore.

When we practice tact, we refrain from blurting out any old thought that pops into our heads. We abstain from displaying our emotions in an uncouth way and instead present a calm, yet honest, temperament. We choose our words carefully so that we may be perfectly understood without being overly offensive.

Another way we might put this would be thus: Tact is temperance applied to interpersonal communication. Temperance, of course, is yet another one of those ideas in the midst of a disappearing act. So we are striking a theme here.

Why do I say tact is disappearing? Well, consider the latest two examples, culled from the headlines.

First we have Steven Landsburg's well-meaning but ill-fated "psychic harm" thought experiment. Landsburg's core point is a rather good one. Knowing exactly what constitutes "harm," as well as which particular kinds of "harm" ought to influence public policy, is important knowledge in the realm of political science. As a society, we ought to take the time to analyze important problems like those, and Landsburg was right to do so.

The problem is that Landsburg's example of an unconscious rape victim was emotionally charged to the point of being, well, tactless. My own comments on the topic (which you can find on Landsburg's blog) reiterated what I think the most important take-away is here: Don't use rape as a means to explore "the big questions." Rape is a horrible example, not because it isn't illustrative of something, but because discussing it is entirely tactless. Frustratingly, Landsburg provided a wealth of additional examples to make his point on his blog, all of which were for the most part ignored precisely because he chose to include a discussion of rape.

A little tact invoked during the writing of that blog post could have gone a long way.

The next example is the recent kerfuffle over the odd-couple musical duet between Brad Paisley and LL Cool J that has managed to ignite a media firestorm over the question of racism and political correctness. (Full disclosure: I have not listened to the song, and I have no intention of doing so - not because I find the ideas expressed by the song objectionable, but simply because I long since lost interest in the artistic output of either of those artists.) Sure, the song comes from an admirable place, exploring the different perspectives of modern-day white US southerners and northeastern urban blacks. On that level, we can probably count this song among the many existing conversations about race relations we have been having again and again for the entirety of US history.

But, on the other hand, invoking the Confederate Flag as a symbol of southern pride is a rather stupid thing to do; not because it is a poor symbol for the south, but because it has baggage. To fly the confederate flag is to choose one's symbolism in complete absence of tact. Tact, for heaven's sake!

It's not as if that is the only flag available to denote southern pride. Every state in the south has its own state flag, for example, and those flags encapsulate a local pride that can be felt by anyone who feels an attachment to the region. Those flags don't come with the same kind of race-relations baggage that the confederate flag does. So why not use them?

Conclusion
No, I am not dense. I do understand that by invoking hypothetical rape or the confederate flag, people are choosing deliberately provocative imagery to explore the boundaries of our sensibilities. I understand that being offended is part of the goal; it's a shock to the system so that we may probe the issue more thoughtfully.

But, I cannot say this enough, doing so lacks tact. Tact is also an important part of any provocative dialogue. Those who undertake to provoke others with their antics should hardly be surprised at the resulting firestorm. In some cases - Sinead O'Conner's infamous papal protest on Saturday Night Live comes to mind here - such provocation may be called for. O'Conner understood full well, by the way, that what she was doing was an incredibly controversial act that would probably never be fully understood in her lifetime. That is to say, she shrugged off tact for the completeness of her statement. It was an informed choice, and such a choice is certainly a valid one to make.

The unfortunate thing about Landsburg's blog post and Paisley's duet, though, is that neither party seems to understand what all the hubbub is about. What it's about is tact. If their intention is to simply court controversy, they did a great job.

If they wanted to persuade others, however, they needed to employ a little more tact. Tact, though, is one of those concepts that is disappearing from modern society. Hopefully, this is a trend that can be reversed.

Is It Wealth And Status, Or Is It A Philosophical Crisis?

Janice Wood of PsychCentral reports:

Those in the upper class are more likely to lie and cheat, cut people off when driving, and endorse unethical behavior in the workplace, according to new research from seven separate studies at the University of California at Berkeley.

It has all the makings of a sensational class warfare study. Those readers more inclined to class dynamics discussions are already wiping the Pavlovian saliva off their chins. But of course, the real story is seldom contained in the first two paragraphs of a news story, but instead in the last two. This story is no different.

It turned out that even those participants not in the upper class were just as likely to report a willingness to engage in unethical behavior as the upper-class participants once they had been primed to see the benefits of greed, researchers said. 

“These findings have very clear implications for how increased wealth and status in society shapes patterns of ethical behavior, and suggest that the different social values among the haves and the have-nots help drive these tendencies,” Piff said.

That is to say that, despite the researchers' best efforts, they could not actually demonstrate that rich people are cheaters and poor people are honest. Instead, they settled for the weaker conclusion that wealth and status "drive tendencies" toward unethical behavior.

Glaringly absent from the researchers' analysis is any discussion of the underlying creed (or lack thereof) held by the study's subjects. They boil the question down to the extremely biased and borderline-dangerous belief that wealth and power spawns unethical behavior.

The problem I have with this idea is not its empirical accuracy, but rather the fact that it fundamentally skirts the whole issue. It's sort of like saying, "People who eat at Joe's Restaurant empirically cause more car accidents than people who eat at Juanita's Restaurant," while omitting the fact that Joe's is licensed to serve alcohol while Juanita's is not.

This kind of fundamental clinical error is the kind of thing I have blogged about before under the category heading "Scientific Method." The study does not say what it purports to say. It omits the most important indicators and then draws conclusions among weaker correlational factors.

Above all, I want to note that the sad, slow destruction of society's moral compass is a real problem. I would never suggest that the study participants did not behave exactly as the researchers observed them to behave. But rather than blaming these behaviors on income statistics, I want to know more about why people are losing their sense of ethics.

Is it merely a coincidence, for example, that those with higher incomes tend to be better-educated, and therefore have experienced the soul-crushing mishmash of value relativism present in modern college philosophy courses? Is income the guilty factor here, or has post-modern education beaten moral objectivity out of people?

Is it merely a coincidence that those with lower incomes tend to have a larger stake in scientific research in which they participate because the financial compensation they receive means more to them than it does for a rich person? In other words, do rich participants simply not take the study itself very seriously? Are they "just having some fun" with something in which they have no real stake? And if so, how did the researchers control for this eventuality? Is this the same thing as "cheating?"

Again and again I have pointed out that society needs ethics. Return to the 18th Century, and you will find yourself in a world in which ethical systems were basically provided by the upper class, or by religion. The closest thing you could find to lower-class ethics might be something like Poor Richard's Almanac, which itself was written by a member of the American upper class.

That values and ethics are deteriorating for any class of people is a real tragedy and a real danger. The solution to this problem is not to blame the rich (or anyone else as a categorical group). The solution is to instill in people a prevailing sense of ethics, a creed.

This blog is my attempt to do so. What is yours?

The Artistic Experience

For me, the mark of a truly great artist is the way his or her work seems to outline its own internally consistent world. Frank Zappa called this "Project/Object, and he is the only artist I am aware of who has ever attempted to put a name to this phenomenon.

Project/Object is a term I have used to describe the overall concept of my work in various mediums. Each project (in whatever realm), or interview connected to it, is part of a larger object, for which there is no 'technical name.' 

Think of the connecting material in the Project/Object this way: A novelist invents a character. If the character is a good one, he takes on a life of his own. Why should he get to go to only one party? He could pop up anytime in a future novel. 

Or: Rembrandt got his 'look' by mixing just a little brown into every other color -- he didn't do 'red' unless it had brown in it. The brown itself wasn't especially fascinating, but the result of its obsessive inclusion was that 'look.' 

In the case of the Project/Object, you may find a little poodle over here, a little blow job over there, etc., etc. I am not obsessed by poodles or blow jobs, however; these words (and others of equal insignificance), along with pictorial images and melodic themes, recur throughout the albums, interviews, films, videos (and this book) for no other reason than to unify the 'collection.'

Over the course of his career, Frank Zappa recorded and performed music with a variety of different lead singers and instrument players. Despite that fact, it is relatively easy to recognize a piece of Frank Zappa music within a few seconds of hearing it. His music exists almost as its own distinct universe.

Nor is Frank Zappa the only artist to have ever achieved this. I'm still reeling from the recent passing of another musical and personal hero of mine, Prince. Prince's music also has a distinct signature, and despite the recent appearance of online articles that highlight hit songs we supposedly "didn't know" he wrote, every Prince-penned song has a certain signature. It's a combination of the rhythm and the harmonic structure, and it's always there. His choice of dominant 7th chords to highlight emotional discord, his distinct way of alternating vocal melodies and keyboard melodies, his sparse and rhythmic bass lines, and so on. Every component of a Prince song is a testament to his distinct approach to composition.

Beyond the music, of course, there is the lyrical content and the aesthetic. Prince got a lot of grief over the years for his sexually charged aesthetic, but people far too often miss the other essential, absolutely vital aspects of his lyrics and aesthetic that made all the sex make logical sense: his spirituality, individuality, and monogamy. Prince wasn't just singing about sex, he was singing about achieving a higher plane of existence through the parallel pursuits of religion and authenticity. What so many people missed about all of this - what so many people fail to see about life in general, unfortunately - is that sex is one of the only media that connect spirituality and authenticity.

Another is music, or art more generally.

The idea that a person's art might reflect their creed isn't controversial, it's just that these days that kind of art is so rare and so hard to come by that we squirm a little bit when we see it. Not only that, we tend to deride the artists capable of producing it. Now that he's dead, we all love Prince, but three weeks ago it was only the music nerds who dared to admit that we loved Prince as much as we do. The same is true for Frank Zappa, who was panned and criticized over his whole career. The same is true for Ayn Rand, for Rush, for Dream Theater, for Freddie Mercury, and so on.

Art - great art - tends to make us embarrassed and uncomfortable. By presenting an authentic, artistic ideal, it exposes the shortcomings in our every-day commitments to morality, and love, and sex. We balk or we giggle, but our souls are laid bare by the purity of the art.

And this is true, I hasten to add, even of art that you don't personally care for. I'm not much of a Miles Davis fan, but his art works the same way. I don't like Andy Warhol, but again, when you see his work, you can't deny the presence of his aesthetic, his creed laid out for all to see.

Part of growing up is getting over our embarrassment and learning to appreciate the purity of an artistic aesthetic. Perhaps that's why artists like Prince and Zappa never really achieve the correct level of recognition until they're gone. Only then are their audiences prepared to admit that we recognize a piece of ourselves in their work.

And if you don't see yourself and your own life in this....

...then you haven't really lived at all.

Throw Caution To The Wind

Let me begin this post by providing the usual caveats for this sort of advice: If you are trying to make a complex and important decision, it is always best to proceed calmly and rationally, analyze the available information, and make the most informed choice you possibly can. 

For most days in life, though, the choices and decisions we make are not so serious. It is for this reason that I recommend throwing some caution to the wind. I'd like to explore that concept a little bit this morning, and I will begin with an example from personal experience.

Why I Didn't Bike To Work Today
As I may have mentioned before, I intend to start biking to work. In my previous post, I had the good sense not to mention a specific date I would begin biking to work so as not to embarrass myself when the date came and went, and I didn't start biking to work... Of course, we here at Stationary Waves don't really have to resort to such face-saving measures, because part of the creed of this website is to confront all of our illusions plainly and simply, and work to overcome them. So, let me formally acknowledge that today was the day I initially intended to start biking to work every day, but doggone it, I chickened out.

I'm acting a bit silly here. There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in a situation in which I have determined to take on a new challenge, and find myself not quite ready to tackle it. It's a new challenge, which means it's something I'm not already accustomed to doing, which means it's above-and-beyond the proverbial call of duty, which means, Hey, I'm a busy guy with a lot on my plate and if I have to chicken out on a new project because I'm not quite ready, that's okay. No harm, no foul.

This is what it means to confront the illusion (in this case, the illusion being that I am totally awesome and perfect and can take on any number of projects without ever failing) plainly and simply. Now it's time to work to overcome it.

The Courage To Fail
I have discussed fear and exercise before:

I certainly know plenty of runners who are convinced that they could "never" bench press their own body weight. I know - I used to be one of them. Then I met a good runner friend of mine, call him DC, who could bench press nearly double his body weight, and could still run further and faster than I could. What was my excuse? I furrowed my brow and proclaimed that I couldn't understand his ability to lift weights. 

But by then it was obvious: I was afraid to lift.

There are two sides to fear and exercise. The first is what I wrote about back then, which is the idea that we furtively cultivate a false narrative designed to help us avoid doing something that we know is difficult. When I was avoiding strength training, I was engaged in just such a narrative. The other side of it is the fear, not of attempting something difficult, but of failing to succeed. What's the difference? One is a fear of one's own abilities. The other fear is a fear of how one's performance will appear to others.

You might be afraid to run a marathon, for example, because you think you're just not built for it - that if you even attempt it, you will suffer significant injury. That's the first kind of fear.

The second kind of fear is when you actually do want to (say) run a marathon, but you're afraid to start training because if you have to back out for some reason, you think people will judge you harshly. You're afraid of the endless supply of pessimistic jerks who are ready to pounce on anyone's inability to achieve one simple, stupid think (and there are a lot of people like that out there). You're afraid of the well-meaning, but insufferable, sympathy you'll attract from friends - the kind of sympathy that expresses their own fears, the kind of sympathy that makes you feel like, just because you couldn't succeed this one time, you'll never be able to succeed.

Regarding my bike ride to work this morning, I'd say it was a good mix of the two kinds of fear. The majority of the fear was the first kind. I felt like I just wouldn't be able to make it all the way to work, and then shower at the gym, and then start working at a decent hour. But a good part of it was the fear that, after telling everyone about my ambitious plan to start biking to work and become a fitness superman, I'd humiliate myself if I bungled the ride.

The question is, though, what's the big deal? Even attempting a daily bike commute is more than what most people are willing to try. Sure, there are many people out there who bike to work and don't make a big deal out of it. But I think if I told them I couldn't quite bring myself to bike to work this morning, they'd understand. This is no different than how I react when someone tells me that they couldn't quite run a marathon (or a 10K, or heck even a 5K). I totally understand what it means to feel unsure of myself when it comes to running.

So there I was this morning, driving to work in the vexing freeway traffic, complaining as all the other motorists bobbed-and-weaved among each other, honking, swearing, speeding. All I could think about was how gorgeous the weather and sunrise were this morning, and about how much fun it would be to be riding my bike along the route I mapped out for myself over the weekend.

I was a sucker. I really should have just thrown caution to the wind and biked to work. I should have had the courage to fail. It's part of my creed. And in this case, the stakes are so low that I was simply foolish not to have done it.

Conclusion
Hobbies aren't very fun if you succeed every single time. Think about it. Whatever your hobby might be - whether it's gardening or video games or cooking or sports or fitness or music or whatever - if it is something totally easy, with a known outcome that can be predicted with 100% certainty, it just isn't very fun. The whole point of pursuing a hobby is taking on something that is beyond your current level of expertise and trying to do it.

When you finally do it, you have to expand your horizons. That means that if your hobby is video games, you have to buy a new game when you win the previous game; if your hobby is fishing, you have to try catching a 2nd fish (or a larger fish, or a fish in a more remote area) after you've caught the first fish; if your hobby is cooking, you have to cook something new once you've perfected the previous recipe; and so on.

The remarkable thing about all of this is that, because we enjoy our hobbies, we are almost completely unaware of the fact that until we succeed, we're failing. It comes with having a hobby.

See? Failing isn't a big deal. Success is the big deal. Everything else is just a warm-up.

I'm biking to work tomorrow!

Contradiction

Part One:

 COL LANDA
          Now according to these papers, all
          the Jewish families in this area have
          been accounted for - except, The Dreyfusis.
          Somewhere in the last year it would appear
          they have vanished.
          Which leads me to the conclusion that
          they've ether made good their escape,
          or someone is very successfully hiding
          them.

          (looking up from his papers, across the table at The FARMER)

          What have you heard about The Dreyfusis
          Monsieur LaPadite?

          PERRIER
          Only rumors -

          COL LANDA
          - I love rumors! Facts can be so
          misleading, where rumors, true or false
          are often reveling. So Monsieur LaPadite,
          what rumors have you heard regarding
          The Dreyfusis?

          (The Farmerlooks at Landa.)

          COL LANDA
          Speak freely Monsieur LaPadite, I want
          to hear what the rumors are, not who told
          them to you.
          The Farmer puffs thoughtfully on his pipe.

          PERRIER
          Again, this is just a rumor - but we
          heard the Dreyfusis had made there way
          into Spain.

          COL LANDA
          So the rumors you've heard have been of
          escape?

          PERRIER
          Yes.

          COL LANDA
          Were the LaPadites and the Dreyfusis
          friendly?

          (As the Farmer answers this question, the CAMERA LOWERS behind
          his chair, to the floor, past the floor, to a small area underneath the
          floorboards revealing;)

          FIVE HUMAN BEINGS
          (lying vertically underneath the farmers floorboards. These human
          beings are The DREYFUSIS, who have lived lying down underneath the
          dairy farmers house for the past year. But one couldn't call what The
          Dreyfusis have done for the last year living. This family has done the
          only thing they could, hidden from a occupying army that wishes to
          exterminate them.)

          PERRIER
          We were families in the same community,
          in the same bussiness. I wouldn't say
          we were friends, but members of the same
          community, we had common interest.

          (The S.S. Colonel takes in this answer, seems to except it, then moves
          to the next question.)

- From the opening scene of Inglorious Basterds

Part Two:

If you’re an anarchist, then it would be illogical for you to argue that the US government should sell off federal land in order to divest itself of property. Instead, the logical argument should be that the federal government should vacate the land it has taken possession of and not interfere with its original owners’ resettlement.

For, if you argue that the government should sell the land it holds, then you are implicitly admitting that the government is a) a legitimate entity and that b) it possesses property rights. If the government were an illegitimate entity, then whatever ownership claims it would make would subsequently be illegitimate as well. Thus, it would have to forfeit all claims to the proceeds of the sales, since those claims are derivative from the initial illegitimate ownership claim.

- Simon Grey, A Brief Thought Exercise

Although I cannot locate a citation for it, somewhere in the far reaches of YouTube, there exists footage of an interview with Frank Zappa in which he discusses his problems with the Libertarian Party, circa 1985 or so. Zappa makes the point that he agreed with the LP on a lot of issues, but on other issues, he found their thinking to be problematic.

In the interview, he cites eminent domain as one example. At the time, the LP platform included a point about returning land to Native Americans. However, the platform also included a point about eminent domain's being unconstitutional, or otherwise wrong. Zappa's point was: How will we return land to Native Americans without practicing eminent domain? Grey's concern is identical to Zappa's; true to the adage, great minds think alike.

Part Three:
You hypocrite, I wrote, how can you contradict yourself? But it's inevitable, I wrote.

It takes courage to discover a sense of conviction. It is a lifelong journey to develop a code of ethics that works for you. Along the way, you are bound to contradict yourself. 

This is the nature of morality. This is what it means to be human. We will never live up to all of our own expectations for ourselves. Our expectations will even change over time. The fact that someone once read and enjoyed Atlas Shrugged or The Communist Manifesto or any other controversial set of moral ideas should never, ever be used as a Scarlet Letter against anyone.

Of course, it's easy for me to dismiss contradiction when levied at me, while simultaneously crying foul when I detect it in the position of others. Easy it may be, but fair it is not. Although I am not an anarchist and I don't wish to defend their beliefs, in the context in which it was written, Grey's point can be thought of as an allusion to open-borders immigration. To wit, if citizenship is a relevant concept - indeed, if nation states are a relevant concept - then how can one simultaneously believe in citizenship and open borders?

Part Four:
Can a Christian Frenchman living through the Holocaust lie to Colonel Landa in order to save a family of innocent Jews from certain death? That is, can one whose values stand against "bearing false witness" nonetheless bear false witness if the cause is noble? Does the value of human life outweigh offer sufficient justification for failing to consistently practice what you preach?

More to the point, under what conditions might we "get away with" a philosophical inconsistency in the name of a just cause?

There are no right answers here. In the movie, Perrier ultimately betrays the Jewish family to protect his own. Human life outweighs his belief in honesty; the lives of his immediate family outweigh those of his neighbors. The Libertarian Party, circa mid-1980s, valued Native American property rights more highly than their stance against eminent domain. Simon Grey values communal homogeneity over strict adherence to free market capitalism.

As is the case with so many different aspects of life, the world is complex to the point that total consistency is probably impossible. In that regard, complaints that religions are self-contradictory are specious, too. Everyone is some level of hypocrite, because there are far too many complications in life to be fully accounted for by any ideology.

What matters is not that a contradiction exists, but that no contradiction remains unexplained. Consequentialist ethics easily account for a "noble lie." In the name of pragmatism, we might prefer some level of legal authority if it enables us to shrink the State's property holdings. Logic dictates that immigration restrictions are easier to eliminate than claims to citizenship.

That good decisions are sometimes contradictory is no strike against good decisions. The problem only arises when one deploys arguments of economic freedom against immigration; when one deploys religious arguments against saving lives; when one uses creed to justify creed-violation.

Ideally, a good-faith dialogue helps clarify the trade-offs. I do see the value of borders in the modern world, in light of practical considerations. I realize that open borders compromise border security - and I am comfortable with that trade-off. Freedom of migration and economic growth are both worth more to me than border security.

I also realize that in-group homogeneity loses out when pit against the arrival of a heterogeneous out-group. This is a good trade, in my opinion, because I do not value in-groups at all, and homogeneous ones - with their many Colonel Landas, large and small - have been all the more pernicious, in my experience.

An Easy Call

If you're in it for the long-term, I humbly suggest that a strong case could be made for shorting Rovio in the Summer of 2016*.

Why? Because, as USA Today reports, the "Angry Birds" franchise will hit the silver screen sometime during the Summer of 2016. That all seems fine and dandy right now, but 2016 is three and a half years from now. What on Earth makes Rovio think that the popularity of the "Angry Birds" franchise will endure for that much longer?

To put this in perspective, this is what Wired called the top 10 video games of 2009 (three years ago):

1. "Left 4 Dead 2"
2. "Assassin's Creed II"
3. "New Super Mario Bros."
4. "Batman: Arkham Asylum"
5. "Punch Out!!"
6. "Uncharted 2"
7. "Rhythm Heaven"
8. "Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars"
9. "Beatles Rock Band"
10. "Flower"

Now, don't get me wrong, these are all probably great video games. (I wouldn't even know, really, since I don't play video games.) But when was the last time you heard anyone talking about them?

Anyway, count me in as having predicted that this "Angry Birds" film will be a flop.
________________
*Note: Anyone who takes investment advice from me is an idiot.

Social Justice

Even if the BHLs are all wrong when it comes to making and subsequently defending their weaker claims, it would be fallacious to conclude that because they can't defend their claims, the claims are thus false. If we temporarily suspend disbelief, can we make hay with any concept of social justice?

Defining The Terms
Justice is a highly contested concept in philosophy, and has been for thousands of years. A vague, but fairly acceptable definition for the term might be "each person getting exactly that which he or she deserves, erring on the side of excess when it comes to good things happening to good people."

That's for "justice," now what about "social?" That one is quite a bit easier: something is social if it involves a group of individuals who share a common attribute. This leaves the door wide open, but it is necessary to do so. After all, I can form a social group around any attribute I want, so long as the rest of the group agrees. Likewise, I can also create a social group for you, so long as I can convince sufficiently many other people that the grouping attribute I've chosen is applicable. It's not important that you agree, it only matters that other people do. This is how stereotypes are made, after all.

Having thus defined "social" and "justice" individually, the definition of the conjoint term "social justice" is obvious: Social justice is when each social group gets exactly what it deserves, erring on the side of excess when it comes to good things happening to good groups.

Applying The Terms - Part One
A key point here is that this definition is fully acceptable and intuitive when applied to groups to which we feel an affinity.

For example, social justice occurs when the poor as a social group gets more of what it deserves. That is, the poor consists of individuals of no less moral worth than any other social group, yet they possess less material wealth. Therefore, social justice occurs when we give more material wealth to worthy people in need, i.e. members of the poor as a social group.

Likewise, social justice occurs when women as a social group gets more of what it deserves. That is, women are individuals of no less moral worth than any other social group, yet they possess a relatively lower level of social credibility relative to men as a social group. Therefore, when we give more social credibility to women than they currently have, we are spreading social justice.

Applying The Terms - Part Two
Another key point is that, just as Plato and Socrates observed eons ago, justice is not merely providing good to those worthy of receiving good, but also bad to those worthy of receiving bad. Justice hasn't been served until a criminal, for example, has received fair punishment for his crimes.

Applied to social justice, however, we begin to sense a need to tread carefully. Which social groups deserve punishment? In some cases, it is easy to define, as in the case of umbrella-concept bogeymen: racists, criminals, the corrupt, the morally depraved, and so on. It is easy enough to conjure up terms that imply the existence of a group of knaves who warrant punishment.

But when called to actually specify social groups who ought to be punished in the real world, with a real legal policy of social justice, we are almost sure to fail. To use the two groups specified in the previous section, how many of us would go on record calling for social justice to be waged against the poor, or against women? Clearly, any such person would be deservedly run out of town. Even calls for social justice against the corresponding opposites - the rich, and men - make most people uncomfortable. Granted, there has been some success over the years demonizing "the rich," or "the one-percent," etc., but it is only the most extreme and vociferous socialists and feminists who would call for social justice against all rich people or all men. For the most part, such calls would make normal people very uncomfortable, and rightly so.

And it is obviously even worse to argue for social justice against other groups based on race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, and so on. Most of us are able to realize fairly quickly that this is unacceptable bigotry.

Concerns
Therefore, it might be that, while justice is a concept that involves both rewards and punishments, social justice is a concept that only involves rewards.

But if this is so, then shouldn't we instead call it "generosity" or "kindness" or perhaps "egalitarianism?" The reason we do not use these terms is because "justice" as applied to social justice is meant to imply that there are social groups who do not have things to which they are actually entitled. The key implication is that by further depriving these groups of what they do not have, things that the rest of us do indeed possess, we are perpetuating an injustice.

Social justice implies not that we should be kind and generous to all social groups, nor that we should treat them all equally. Social justice in fact goes a step further to suggest that whatever conditions are currently had by the poor, by women, by African-Americans, or whomever, are morally wrong and that failing to correct the problem - or at least to try - constitutes a black mark against our own personal morality.

To that point, I raise two objections:

1. Unless you believe in Original Sin, it is impossible to hold people morally responsible for the present conditions of the world, no matter how ill they are, unless you can draw clear causality between the actions of the accused and the suffering of the victims. Regarding the poor, for example, it is not at all clear that my getting up and going to work and going home and spending time with my family every day, etc., is contributing to the suffering of the poor. So, in what way am I morally responsible for the suffering of the poor? And if the answer is, "You are morally obligated to help the poor," then I ask again: Are you not merely talking about kindness and generosity, rather than justice?

2. As I noted above, I can assemble a social group consisting of any particular attribute I choose. All I require is an applicable attribute and a large enough number of other people who agree with me. Therefore, I can draw the "poverty line" at $15K per year, $50K per year, $150K per year, or any other number. I need not draw my racial groups around skin color alone, I can draw them around national borders. Therefore "Americans" should give more to "Africans" to correct social injustice. Or, perhaps I am more interested in the unique social injustice suffered by those of mixed racial origin versus the luckier members of pure race-based groups. Here I might pit a son against his own father.

Under the social justice framework, any group I can identify can be argued as having unique social justice concerns that ought to be corrected, but there is no framework for identifying which group should be focused on first or most passionately. There is also no discussion about the selfish motives of group insiders who argue for the social justice of their own group. Of course there are selfish individual motives for all of these things, but there is no room for that particular line of analysis in a social justice discussion.

Conclusion
David Friedman has quite adeptly poked holes in our ability to concretely define social justice. Here, I have attempted to define it and discuss it as broadly as possible. Even in as flattering terms as we can give it, the concept involves major problems that cannot be easily overcome.

So, I would argue that social justice is at best problematic, and at worst more of a rhetorical tool used to promote selfish political objectives. At any rate, it is a difficult thing to take seriously.

That's Crazy

The other day, someone on my Google+ feed posted a link to the following video from libertarian philosopher Stefan Molyneux:

I must confess that I found the whole the rather odd. Molyneux starts with a flawed premise: that those who derive the most enjoyment from fictional, fantastical tales of heroism are the people least likely to engage in true heroism (because they're nerds lol!). He then proceeds to reason that all heroic fiction is designed to teach us that heroism itself is a fantasy, and that the only thing we can ever hope to do is be a mindless cog in the state-led machine. Molyneux concludes the video (spoiler alert, I guess) by declaring that we all have it within us to be heroic, and that heroism just happens to be... pretty much engaging in the kind of lifestyle Molyneux himself would prefer that you lead.

Let me begin this discussion by stating a few important points.

First, I sympathize with Molyneux's libertarian world-view. Faithful Stationary Waves readers know me to be an outspoken libertarian myself. So, I would ask you to keep that in mind as you read my criticism of Molyneux's video. I certainly don't intend to criticize the concept of freedom, nor do I consider it "unheroic" to take a philosophical stand in favor of freedom, individuality, and all the other aspects of my creed that Molyneux also shares.

Second, it appears to me that Molyneux's entire premise rests on the notion that people who enjoy comic books, fantasy novels, and science fiction are weak, cowardly nerds, and he buttresses this claim with nothing other than a rhetorical appeal to the viewer's own biases against nerds. It is as if Molyneux is simply saying, "Think about who likes fantasy. Nerds like fantasy. You don't want to be a nerd, therefore we can all agree that fantasy is for nerds. Therefore, it must be that fantasy encourages people to become nerds. Therefore, it must be that the authors of fantasy want people to be nerds. Therefore, fantasy must be, at its core, a statist concept. Therefore true heroism is libertarianism. QED."

I am in a charitable mood today, so I will temper my true reaction to this argument and respond as follows: By appealing to a bandwagon fallacy and his viewers' aversion to being thought of as nerds, Molyneux is the one who sounds like he's trying to brainwash people. (Of course, I leave open the possibility that Molyneux has simply brainwashed himself.)

Either Way, This Video Is Weirdly Alarming
To be honest, when I watched the video, I recoiled in disgust. The core analysis is sloppy and hinges on the idea that anyone who likes fantastic fiction (we might as well start calling it Romanticism, since that is the proper literary term for fiction that appeals to our ideal types) is some sort of a philosophically stunted child. That is a claim so preposterous that even responding to it legitimizes it. There is absolutely no need to "respond to" that claim in an attempt to "refute" it, any more than there is a need to refute the idea that the Matterhorn is made of chocolate or that Brad Pitt is the criminal mastermind behind the kidnapping of the Lindbergh Baby. Just because someone levies a claim against an individual or a group does not mean that the accused needs to craft a rebuttal. It is Molyneux who is making the claims here. Let us consider the evidence. Oh wait, he didn't supply any.

Even so, if we accept Molyneux's point as true, then his video is all the more off-putting, for in it he slanders the victims of the state. In order to get viewers on his side, he first insults them, calls them weak and unheroic, and then dares them to comply with his own personal view of heroism. It's manipulative. Think about it: If this happened in a romantic relationship, it would be called abuse.

From the assumption that Molyneux's ultimate conclusions are correct, his method is highly coercive and underhanded. From the assumption that Molyneux's reasoning is sloppy and flawed, his conclusions have nothing to offer us. Either way, the video sucks.

Forces At Work
I can only really see two possible explanations for a video like this, and in all likelihood what's really going on is a combination of the two. Let's consider them now.

The first possibility is that Stefan Molyneux, who quite often posts videos, writes articles, and makes public speeches that reference psychology, knows enough about psychology to employ his knowledge in the crafting of his message. That is, Molyneux knows that he is being manipulative when he is being manipulative, and he's doing it because he thinks it's for the greater good.

The analogy here is sort of like when a parent says to a child that taking too much Halloween candy is "greedy" when what the parent really means is that eating too much candy is unhealthy and grabbing huge handfuls of free candy is taking advantage of your neighbor's generosity. The parent knows that the full explanation for exactly why a child shouldn't take too much Halloween candy would be lost on the average five-year-old, so the parent contents himself/herself to give the topic the "because I said so" treatment. With a single word ("greedy") the child can (perhaps) learn both not to eat too much candy and not to take undue advantage of a neighbor's kindness.

Similarly, Molyneux might be arguing against living with one's head in the clouds, believing that the word "heroism" only applies to strong, near-perfect beings who confront world-threatening danger and subdue the unyielding terrors that threaten the universe. Molyneux might simply be saying, Look, you have more heroism in you than you realize. You just have to learn to see that anyone can be a hero by standing up for what they believe. You don't have to be a wizard or a super-hero, you just have to actively pursue the world you would like to live in. The whole, "What are you, a statist nerd???" thing might just be there to simplify the message.

But notice how this explanation requires us to believe that Molyneux is a parental figure, or that he possesses a greater understanding of such things as individuality and heroism than the cowardly nerds who desperately need him to tell them how to be truly heroic. There is something overweening about that attitude.

The second possibility going on in this video is that Molyneux has become so practiced at applying his unique brand of "everything you know is a statist lie" reasoning, that he really does believe that anyone who ever wrote an entertaining story about a super-hero saving the world was a statist hell-bent on stunting your mind, harvesting your labor for the benefit of the state, and nefariously plotting the next step toward total control of the collective populace.

Of course, the ironic thing about this possibility is that, in order to believe it, we must believe that Molyneux's view of politics is a literal incarnation of the kinds of stories being told in the comic books and sci-fi movies he so criticizes. And if this second possibility is true - if Molyneux actually does believe that the state deploys Romanticist artists to stunt our philosophical heroism and control us, body and soul - then Molyneux himself is the greatest nerd of all. For it is he who has crafted a fantastical fiction about an evil plot to rule the world, one that can only be overturned by a libertarian revolt against the state's mind control.

The whole thing borders on paranoia.

These two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible that Molyneux not only knows enough about psychology to create manipulative videos, but also that he is creating manipulative videos with the express purpose of sparking a revolt against the statist knaves who are trying to control our minds. Fight fire with fire, if you will. Or, that there is some blend of these two things. For example, perhaps Molyneux tells himself that when he insults his target demographic and then challenges them to win his approval, he is just crafting a "persuasive argument" for his ideas. Further, he might not believe that all Romantic literature is statist, but he might believe that enough of it is statist to present an existential threat to impressionable young minds.

In fairness, this is the more likely scenario. It is probably the case that Molyneux sees videos like this one as being persuasive, not manipulative; and he likely sees the state as willing to propagandize rather than devoted to mind control. But these concepts are gradients of the same thing. It is akin to saying that perhaps Molyneux is not so much a bad man as he is terribly confused or deeply flawed in his reasoning.

I can temper these statements so that they more easily appeal to those of my readers who are fans of Stefan Molyneux. But the fact remains: Molyneux has at least publicly claimed that Romanticism in literature is statist mind control. As the subject line of the blog post indicates, that's crazy. I'm sorry, but it is.

Another Way Of Looking At It
From my perspective, the frustrating thing about this video is that it is so completely unnecessary. There is no need to tag Romanticism as statist. There is no need to declare that fans of sci-fi and fantasy are cowardly, nerdy weaklings. Why on Earth should anyone take it so far?

Here at Stationary Waves, we too believe in individuality and dispelling our illusions. It is the de facto mission statement of my blog.

But when I tell you to set aside your illusions and live in reality, it is not because I think the state will get you if you don't. No, living in reality is beneficial to you because you are more capable of comprehending life and what's going around you, and that will make you better-equipped to deal with the challenges you face in life. And that's all there is to it. I am not after your donation to support my blog. I am not after your ideological commitment to my own personal political ideas. I don't even know most of you! I want you to live in reality because overcoming my own illusions works well for me and I personally believe it will also work for you. Period.

And when I tell you to pursue individuality, it is not because I am antagonistic toward collectivism, but rather simply because I see individuality as being existentially satisfying. That has been my own personal experience, and individuality has been good for my own personal mental health. That is the message I want you to take away from my blog. It has nothing to do with a war between competing world views or a challenge to rise to my concept of heroism.

I believe every human being deserves to be happy. I believe life is what you choose to make of it. The happier we all are, the better off we'll all be. We'll be healthier, we'll treat each other better, we'll be less inclined to harm or distrust each other. It's just a belief I have, a theory. So when I write about it, it's because I'm thinking about it and I want to share my thoughts with others, to see if they also feel this way.

But that's it. It's not a movement. It's not a team. It's not a political objective. It's a conversation. That's why I blog for free, and that's why I like to write. Join in the conversation, rub up against my ideas, challenge them, put your own thoughts out there, too.

And if I'm qualified to give advice about videos like the one above (and really - I'm not qualified), then my advice is to steer clear of intellectual poison designed to make you feel ashamed of being "a nerd" so that you will join somebody else's political cause. That's crazy.

See? When you say it out load it even sounds crazy. And it's certainly not happiness.

You Hypocrite

So, presumptive Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan used to draw ideas and inspiration from the works of Ayn Rand. Predictably, this fact is causing a bit of a media stir. It is a rather odd sort of smear campaign, maligning someone by pinning their politics to a particular philosopher's ideas.

Breaking News From 1905: Ayn Rand Was Only Human
Keeping the context in this situation is relatively important. Ayn Rand serves as a bit of a weather vein for liberal-media types. Our college professors have done a good job training the verbal-reasoning crowd to reject Ayn Rand, disparaging her as a "pop philosopher," a drug addict, and the leader of a cult. Few mere peddlers of ideas have inspired such vitriol from their ideological opposites. Rand stands alone in that regard.

The core problem with Rand's work is that it is insufficiently academic and several orders of magnitude too polemic to contribute meaningfully to a level-headed discussion of philosophy. That's just the objective truth of the matter. But that doesn't mean she's "all wrong." Nor does it really discredit the merits of her ideas. This 2009 Maverick Philosopher post does a good job of discussing the shortcomings of Rand's work. While I do not necessarily agree with it all, I think the author is fair to Rand and her ideas, which is far more than can be said for most other critics of Rand.

But it is not the critics' fault that Rand's work was insufficiently academic and far too polemic. That is Rand's fault, and she lived with the consequences of those facts.

If she was a poor advocate of her ideas, it is her fault that she has been misunderstood. It strikes me as being incredibly unlikely, however that she really was a poor advocate of her ideas. Her book continues to sell well, her ideas continue to change lives, and many millions of people throughout the world continue to subscribe to their understanding of Rand's Objectivism. These are not the features of a terrible philosopher.

I readily state that Objectivism has flaws and that Rand was not a perfect human being. However, there is a serious problem with the standard to which Rand is held in public opinion. No one ever argues, for example, that Immanuel Kant is an excellent philosopher by virtue of the fact that his ideas are irrefutable and he lived them to the letter. Right? Right?

Not so with Rand. The fact that some of her ideas are poorly argued in writing, combined with the fact that she lead a less-than-perfect life are enough to win her adversaries well into posthumanity.

To put it lightly, this is unfair.

Hypocrisy Is To Ideology As Imperfection Is To Humanity
I am not a Republican, nor do I hold any particular level of respect of Paul Ryan. Truthfully, I know little about him and have no faith in - and little respect for - rightist politics.

That being said, lambasting anyone - anyone - for failing to live up to the perfection of their chosen creed is a despicable and morally weak attack on anyone.  It takes courage to discover a sense of conviction. It is a lifelong journey to develop a code of ethics that works for you. Along the way, you are bound to contradict yourself.

This is the nature of morality. This is what it means to be human. We will never live up to all of our own expectations for ourselves. Our expectations will even change over time. The fact that someone once read and enjoyed Atlas Shrugged or The Communist Manifesto or any other controversial set of moral ideas should never, ever be used as a Scarlet Letter against anyone.

The fact that someone is interested in developing a sense of ethics, regardless of what general ideological pattern those ethics follow, is the mark of an inquisitive person who wishes to be good. If Paul Ryan - or anyone else for that matter - is a bad person or an unelectable politician, let us say so by analyzing his record, his platform, and his actions.

That, as opposed to demonizing him for having once subscribed to a moral code held by millions worldwide. If you wish to attack Objectivism, do so. If you wish to attack Ryan's politics, do so. Do not make one guilty of evil by mere association with the other. After all, your own beliefs may be called into question one day, and it will be just as easy to demonstrate that your lack of perfection is hypocrisy. You big hypocrite, you.

Where Restrictionism Goes Awry

I now turn my attention to the second of Simon Grey's three recent posts on immigration. (See my response to the first here.) This second post is short enough that I'll just quickly quote it in its entirety:

Regarding my prior post, I think that the borders debate can be condensed even further. Are the restrictionists wrong because they a) apply the wrong principles logically, b) apply the right principles illogically, or c) because open borders advocates are offended by restrictionist policy?

If a), the open borders crowd needs to show why the (often implicit) principles upon which restrictionist arguments are founded are wrong. If b), the open borders crowd needs to show how the restrictionists went awry in their thinking. If c), though, who cares?

 I'll respond to this in depth, but first I have to point out that it is a bit of a loaded question fallacy. Here's why:

The first point, a), is a contradiction. One cannot apply wrong principles "logically." One can apply valid but false principles logically, because something can be logically valid without being true. But if something is wrong, I understand this to mean that it is neither valid nor true. Adhering to wrong principles is illogical, so I cannot select a).

Point b) is possible, but if I were to make this selection, I would be conceding points (i.e. "right principles") that Grey has not spelled out explicitly. I'm not ready to do that until Grey enumerates his principles, so I cannot select b).

Point c) is a particularly odd one. It's true that my being offended by immigration restrictionism does not, in and of itself, refute any arguments for immigration restrictionism. But the real question is: Why does immigration restrictionism offend me? And the answer to that is because it is an argument in favor of morally inferior conditions (poor immigrants barred from an effective means of improving their lives), economically inferior conditions (trade restrictions always result in a deadweight loss to society), cartelized legal systems over voluntary trade (collective ownership over private ownership), and yes, in many cases outright racism (barring immigrants from entry based on race or creed).

In other words, knowingly adhering to a set of principles that results in both moral error and inferior outcomes is offensive. But the fact that it's offensive isn't the reason restrictionism is wrong. The reasons restrictionism is wrong are also the same reasons restrictionism is offensive.

So I can't technically choose c), either.

Wrong Principles
Immigration restrictionism is based on some pretty wrong principles. My primary objection to immigration restrictionism is its economic unsoundness.

It is interesting to me that most restrictionists lean conservative on the political scale, because most conservatives consider themselves advocates of free market principles. In my view, the most compelling case for open borders is the economic one. Border restrictions are exactly the same thing as import quotas, import tariffs, and other similar trade restrictions. In this case, the commodity is labor. Exactly the same economic analyses apply to the labor market as applies to the markets for automobiles, oil, food, and anything else. It is unanimously understood - even among left-wing liberal economists like Paul Krugman, who famously wrote a book on free trade - that trade restrictions impede our standard of living on both sides of every border. Any restrictionist who tries to make an economic argument against immigration is thus applying wrong economic principles. See this Open Borders page for an in-depth look at the economic case for open borders.

Belief in collective ownership of the commons is also a wrong principle used to argue in favor of restrictionism. Again, the most compelling argument against this is economic: the Tragedy of the Commons. It's also a morally wanting principle because collective ownership - unlike joint ownership - is primarily used to exclude others from using resources, rather than managing the efficient use of resources. I mentioned yesterday that I would like to write a future blog post on the immorality of collective ownership. I will have to save that point for later.

Finally, and most egregiously, the case for restrictionism is often made using overtly racist claims. These sorts of claims are neatly summarized here. I do not need to explain in depth why claims about immigrant IQ or cultural inferiority are racist. On the contrary, it is the burden of the immigration restrictionists who choose to make these arguments to explain not merely the dangers of hypothetical troglodytes who drag their knuckles across the border only to ruin everything, but more specifically: why should I believe that immigrants are inferior on any level? Often times, when confronted with this question, restrictionists recede into claims of self-evidence: "It's obvious." "You're denying reality." "People are not fungible resources." "Are you saying there are no genetic differences between human beings?" and so on. But absolutely none of these responses establish the validity of the initial claim. Thus, the burden falls to restrictionists to prove that immigrants are inferior.

Illogic
Yesterday - and in a previous Open Borders piece - I discussed the contradiction inherent in believing in collective ownership.

The argument is this: If Simon Grey is a restrictionist and RP Long is an open borders advocate, and we both live in the same country, then "common property" is not a valid argument against open borders. The reason is because some of the people who hold a legitimate claim to the commons favor open borders, and some don't. There is only one way under a common property regime to resolve this dispute: democracy. But if democracy is capable of nullifying some property ownership claims in the immigration arena, then it is also capable of nullifying property ownership claims in any other arena. That opens the door to an argument for socialism.

Thus, unless Grey wants to openly advocate socialism so long as it is democratically established, he needs to provide some argument that demonstrates that immigration is a special case. Otherwise, he's caught holding contradictory beliefs, and that isn't logically consistent.

Conclusion
Hopefully I have shed some light on Grey's question. To be clear, I think he asks a good question, even if it is a bit of a loaded one. It's healthy to ask those who disagree with us: "If I'm wrong, then where are you saying that I have gone wrong?" That demonstrates both good-faith in the conversation and a commitment to rationality. While Grey and I disagree on immigration, Grey is to be lauded for his approach to the debate. Even if we never convince each other, it should be obvious that we're capable of disagreeing respectfully and civilly.

That's important because it demonstrates that a dialogue is necessary. Clearly many different people in the country feel many different things about the immigration debate. It's a debate that needs to happen, and we should consider it positive and encouraging that folks like Simon Grey prove that the debate is possible.

That is an unequivocal win for everyone.