Picture a televangelist smiling beatifically. Against the Dying of the Light Objectivism is a life-affirming philosophy.
Welcome back to the show. I do have a goal for this episode, above and beyond just telling stories about my encounters with feminism, Marxism and postmodernism. I believe there are costs to playing that game of ideological partisanship — costs to your intellectual freedom and your ability to learn and grow as an independent critical thinker.
I want to suggest that, maybe, the only winning move is not to play. Who is Jordan Peterson? Jordan Peterson is a clinical and academic psychologist who teaches at the University of Toronto. His research is mostly in areas of abnormal, social and personality psychology, and the psychology of religious belief.
Peterson began pressing his case in public settings and on YouTube, and his popularity blew up, especially with audiences that lean conservative or libertarian, and among younger white males. He was concerned about getting into legal trouble and possibly losing his job at the university, so he opened an account on Patreon to receive monthly support donations from the public, and started appearing on popular independent media shows of folks like Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, and Sam Harris.
Who Do You Trust? Who do you trust? What makes some voices seem trustworthy and authoritative to us and others not? And why not start with feminism. My marketing friends would say that feminism has a serious branding problem. It was in middle school, but not at the Catholic middle school that I went to for 7th and 8th grade.
It was in a philosophy mini-course that I was taking at a local university. I grew up in Ottawa, Ontario, which is the capital city of Canada. The city has two major universities, Carleton University and the University of Ottawa. Our class had about fifteen students, enough to fit around one of those rectangular conference tables.
And that was my first formal introduction to philosophy, at the age of Some basic logic and argument analysis, some normative ethics, some meta-ethics — we did case studies on the ethics of abortion and capital punishment.
Some epistemology, the problem of skepticism. And we did a unit on the philosophy of feminism, and some related topics, like censorship and pornography. So my first exposure to feminism was in a philosophy class.
Not only was my first exposure to feminism in a philosophy class; it was in a philosophy class that was doing classic philosophical reasoning, presenting and evaluating arguments for and against positions that relate to feminist concerns.
None of the theoretical buzzwords that are sometimes attached to modern feminism. Just straight, argument-focused philosophy. Feminism as a belief system has two distinct components.
One is a descriptive component, a set of claims about empirical facts, about how things are, in reality. The other is a normative component, a set of claim about values, about how things ought to be. The main descriptive claim is this: Currently, and historically, women have been treated differently from men with respect to a range of important social categories, like legal status, economic status, political status, religious status, and so on.
The more common phrasing is to say that women have been discriminated against, under the law, in government and politics, within the economy, and so on. Now, in cases where many of these formal barriers have been relaxed, as they are in many modern countries today, the descriptive component asserts that, in spite of these positive changes, there remain a variety of social forces that operate to make it so that the experiences and opportunities for men and women are still discriminatory.
Police dogs can discriminate between different smells.
In the same way, giving some people but not others the right to vote, is an act of discrimination. The descriptive part is just as we said. To give a somewhat more contemporary example, if the law makes it impossible for a husband to be convicted of rape against his wife, because it treats the husband as having sexual rights over his wife, one can describe this situation in a morally neutral way, in terms of the differences in the status of men and women under the law, as a descriptive claim.
This practice is unjust. Women should not be discriminated against in this way.State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial (i.e.
for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, wage labor and centralized management), or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies .
Now, one can study Marxist theories of historical change, and the Marxist critique of capitalism, and learn something valuable, without agreeing with Marx’s views on the ideal socialist state, or the inevitability of socialism, or the role of communism in ushering in socialism.
This is Ayn Rand in a nutshell.
Therefore, the complete eradication of something, in this case, collective action, must be the end goal. This is an article of faith among actual American style Libertarians. According to Ayn Rand, capitalism is a system that emerges among a group of free individuals, each putting time and effort and owning the right to do so, and freely trading among themselves (Rand, Branden, Greenspan and Hessen 31).
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism By Danil Kolesnikov Ayn Rand, a Russian-American philosopher who had influenced Western society in 20th century with her ideas of rational egoism, laissez-faire capitalism, elevation of reason and comprehensive philosophical system called Objectivism.
“The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of.