Comments Off on 927 – When objective isn’t—there’s Objectivism
Aug272025
Sad to say, the vast majority of people do not take philosophy seriously, even though they are helplessly in its grip. It is understandable that with with all of the competing ideologies and perspectives on the nature and purpose of human life, philosophy is seen by many simply as another religion without the element of deity – a subjective secular belief system.
Enter philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand, whose philosophy of Objectivism has a name that specifically refutes the subjective, and who since having arrived on America’s philosophical frontier, established a reputation unlike that of any other philosopher. She self-identified as being on the Right, which she associated with freedom and capitalism.
But there are many others who self-identify as being on the Right, who completely reject Ayn Rand’s philosophy, not because of its principles which they rarely mention, but because of its messenger.
“Ayn Rand is a modernist atheist radical individualist; what about that is conservative?” asked the Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles on his April 4 podcast during which he ranked the greatest philosophers.Continue reading »
Comments Off on 919 – The defining point: EVIL is LIVE spelled backwards
Jul022025
There is a symbolic truth to the saying that ‘EVIL is LIVE spelled backwards.’ After all, the defining point of ‘evil’ concerns life itself.
But ‘evil’, like ‘good’, is an abstract concept. Being able to see and recognize evil when one encounters it often seems even more difficult than trying to define it.
The most popular form of evil is generally known by another name: socialism. That too few are able to equate socialism with evil is cause for concern, to say the least. But that so many equate socialism with the good is cause for outright alarm.
Dennis Prager of PragerU has advised that “wisdom begins with understanding that human nature is not basically good, nor evil.” In choosing socialism, most do not understand either the principles of socialism itself, nor the nature of the evil that makes socialism possible.
Thus it is essential to listen to the growing number of people who have lived and suffered under socialism now coming forward to sound the alarm. To that end we have recently featured accounts of how socialism manifested itself in countries like North Korea, Senegal, Venezuela, and Iran. As Venezuelan immigrant Daniel Di Martino describes his personal mission: “I decided to educate Americans on the horrors of socialism.”
People who have freedom tend to take it for granted. But the fragility of freedom can never be overstated. Sometimes, to see and appreciate what one has at hand, it is necessary to look beyond, to appreciate what those in other nations do not have and wish they did.
It’s called freedom and it’s found exclusively on the political polarity that’s Just Right.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
For many, philosophy has devolved into an exercise where errors in reasoning, logic, and definitions are layered upon one another, resulting in the field becoming a subject of mockery among the general populace. Imagine if foundational sciences like physics, chemistry, or mathematics had clung to their initial mistakes; we might never have seen the advent of computers or advancements in medicine, and basic arithmetic could still be in dispute.
To rejuvenate the importance of philosophy, we need to pinpoint and resolve its historical puzzles and paradoxes, effectively consigning them to obsolescence.
In his work, “Judge: Philosophy and Freedom in the First Person,” Paul McKeever meticulously examines twelve classic philosophical problems, offering solutions with such lucidity that there remains no justification for their continued discussion as credible issues.
“Judge” distinguishes itself as a work of deep insight, crucial not just for academic scholars but for anyone intrigued by the exploration of human nature, our connection to reality, and our interactions with others. In a very novel way, it provides one with an understanding of reality, perception, identity, logical reasoning, ethical principles, and the fundamental aspects of individual freedom.
However, there’s no need to take our word for this assessment. In keeping with the theme of McKeever’s work, you be the judge.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 856 – ATHEISNT—Fallacies And Realities About Atheists
Apr172024
Atheist Richard Dawkins recently sparked a controversy that challenges fundamental assumptions about both atheism and faith-based belief. Referring to himself as a “cultural Christian” he has been criticized by both atheists and religious believers alike.
Unfortunately, too many self-described atheists are being unfairly criticized and maligned by those who, on the one side, equate atheism with an absence of morality, while on the other equate the sharing of some religious beliefs with unprincipled atheism.
One dictionary we consulted incorrectly defines ‘atheism’ as “the belief that there is no god.” The problem with this definition is that atheism is not a ‘belief’ system at all. Nor is atheism a philosophy or code of morality. It is merely the non-acceptance or a rejection of the concept of a literal supernatural ‘deity’ – nothing else. Atheism does not require ‘belief’ as its base of justification. Atheism is primarily a response to theism, which does rely on ‘faith’ and ‘belief.’
The fact that many atheists abide by a moral code that mirrors that associated with Christianity is less about atheists borrowing from Christian values than it is about Christians and atheists alike borrowing values from other shared philosophical sources. This includes many writers and philosophers throughout history setting out the principles of Western culture over time – from the early Greeks through the Age of Enlightenment and to the present day.
Those who blame atheism as being the source of our current tyrannical zeitgeist – or who blame the Soviet Union’s past tyrannical history on its ‘officially atheist status’ are arguing a contradiction. One cannot judge any individual or national actions on what is ‘not’ believed and practiced but on what ‘is’ believed and practiced. In both cases, the cause of the tyranny was (and is) the ideology of collectivism.
Today’s WOKE ideology is merely the latest label given to yesterday’s Marxist ideology – and religious affiliation or lack thereof has little to do with the support of such ideologies. The same principle holds true for freedom.
Whether atheist or religious, if one accepts and respects the principles of individualism, individual rights and freedom, then it is possible for people of every belief and non-belief to share the ideals and blessings of a society that’s Just Right, with the understanding that freedom of religion also includes the right to be free from religion.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 855 – Do you mind?—thinking about thinking
Apr102024
There has recently been a growing concern and much discussion about why so many people are still not awake, but just remain WOKE in the face of a pending civilizational collapse. “The WOKE mind virus is the greatest existential threat faced by humanity,” concludes Gad Saad, and Elon Musk apparently shares his alarm.
Among other causes cited for this sad state of affairs are the inability to have an inner monologue, the effect of the Covid spike protein, fear mongering, bacteria, chronic infection, the fake news media, intelligence guided by irrational bias, and of course the WOKE ideology, to name but a few.
Missing from most of the discussions is the ‘means’ by which people actually think: through the use of concepts and language. Because the human mind is essentially ‘programmable,’ and because words and concepts are the ‘software’ on which each mind functions, humans in the exercise of free will have the capacity and choice to think and behave either rationally or irrationally.
An irrational concept is one that does not conform to reality or reason. And significantly, irrational concepts can be held by highly intelligent people. How is this possible? Continue reading »
Comments Off on 850 – The spoken to—Censorship’s true target
Mar062024
Once again, Canada’s politicians are on the ‘banning hate speech’ bandwagon, this time in the guise of a piece of legislation being introduced into parliament as Bill C-63.
The proposals contained in Bill C-63 are so bizarre and outrageous that most would dismiss them outright. Like something out of a science-fiction horror fantasy, the bill allows the government to convict, fine, and imprison ‘for life’ people who have not committed any speech offense, but who may do so in the future. Seriously.
How are such people to be identified? Through a ‘complaint’ system in which the identity of the complainant is kept a secret. The complainant can be anyone. As explained by Ezra Levant, “a person may lay an information if he fears that another person will commit a speech offense in the future.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of Bill C-63’s unconscionable and immoral proposals.
But more frightening than the contents of the bill itself are the people who would even allow themselves to entertain such evil. Former Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, who drafted the law, has announced that the government also has a “nuclear option” by being able to make it impossible to access any specific website in the country.
The Trudeau government’s obsession with regulating and censoring the internet suggests that he and his government greatly fear the truth. Truth is, after all, what is being eliminated from any allowable public discussion.
The real immorality of censorship is not just in the fact that it violates the fundamental right of someone to speak freely (which it does) but also because it violates the fundamental rights of those who wish to hear and listen freely. Censorship is less about the speaker than it is about the ‘spoken to’. The speaker is already in possession of the truth; the ‘spoken to’ may not be aware of the truth, and that’s how the politicians of the Left want to keep it.
Given that the Left is always unable to defend its ideology on intellectual or moral grounds, censorship is a great way to avoid that responsibility: “When persuasion fails, just use force.” Censorship is the perfect weapon of violence for those consumed with irrational hatreds that they do not wish to have exposed.
This should not be surprising because when it comes to ‘hate,’ the Left hates individualism, freedom, free speech, private property rights, justice, capitalism, and anybody or anything that is Just Right.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
“When you’re dead, you don’t know you’re dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you’re stupid.” And to explicitly conclude the thought of that popular meme: “When you’re stupid and you don’t know it, the pain is felt by others.”
The truth of that statement strikes at the heart of what was experienced in Nazi Germany, thanks to the seemingly willing support that so many German people gave to Hitler. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, believed that this was a not a consequence of malice, but of widespread stupidity.
While in a German prison during the Hitler years, he formulated a theory arguing that we must seek to understand the nature of stupidity as stupidity is not an intellectual defect, but a moral one. Stupidity, therefore, is a much more dangerous enemy than malice because one can expose malice and argue against it and even use force to stop it, but this is not possible when dealing with stupidity.
One has but to look at all of the utterly stupid ideas and causes (and quite demonstrably so) being supported in today’s zeitgeist. From Covid to climate change, these stupid fictions continue to be believed by a significant number of people who, as a result, become a danger not only to others but to themselves as well. But having chosen to be stupid, they are oblivious to this reality.
Moreover, this phenomenon of stupidity, observed Bonhoeffer, is most predominant among people living in groups and collectives, and very rare in independent individuals or those who generally live alone. This suggests a strong psychological force at play, and goes a long way towards explaining why the collectivist Left (communism/socialism/fascism) promotes so many genuinely stupid and immoral ideas, policies and ideologies.
Upon a review of the evidence, it would appear that Bonhoeffer’s theory that stupidity is a moral defect turns out to be Just Right.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
