Archive for the ‘objectivism’ Category

Where is the perpetual machine?
April 21, 2009

I always knew these guys have a sound metaphysical backing of what they are promising. After all, promises presuppose an absolute method -may not be proven yet – but a conviction that there is a logical method to prove it. When Mr Tata promised to manufacture a car in the India -at the same price as the Europeans manufacture their cars’ audio systems – he had envisioned a method to do it. It surely cannot come out of thin air, can it?

Years ago, when I was going through the Atlas Shrugged for the first time, I was excited to read about the self perpetuating machine called the Galt’s motor. Not that I was excited about its feasibility in the real world because I could comprehend what it stood for in the novel. Galt not only had the temerity of thinking he could make a machine which runs on the environment (it used static electricity from the environment to run) and there by turning the metaphor ‘out of thin air’ on its head, but he actually made it run.

Now come on guys, bring out that machine and show it to all of us. We have a right to see along with the rights to eat, learn and be healthy. And have a little pity too, we are a socialist republic. Don’t just think about profit, it is such a dirty word. You think we are such fools we won’t realize, didn’t you? You will use the machine to create rice at zero cost and plan to sell it at Rupees 3(Congress manifesto) and Rupees 2(BJP manifesto) a kilo and thereby earning such enormous profits?

Umm, what do you mean there is no such machine? You mean rice still needs to be produced the conventional way? Whose money have you decided to spend then?


Pragmatism: The new age philosophy
January 31, 2009

Consider what President Obama had to say about the size of government in his inaugural address. It signaled the rise of pragmatism as a new-age philosophy in the world stage. Not that it did not exist before, but never before has a leader of any consequence declared it in the grandest stage as the basis for taking decisions and made to sound virtuous about it.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end…” defines the word ‘pragmatism‘ thus:

(philosophy) the doctrine that practical consequences are the criteria of knowledge and meaning and value


By definition it means the absence of any principles. It means taking some ‘arbitrary actions’ having no relation with moral values. The thing that decides what actions to take, is an assumption that it might work, or it might attain the necessary goals. Because, in the absence of any principles, it is absolutely impossible to have any concrete basis to hope that it will work.


Rational capitalist, has two excellent posts on the topic.


The desire to “compromise with anybody on anything” is the hallmark of the pragmatist and such a desire necessitates contradiction

      Pragmatism primed consists of being so disintegrated intellectually that in addition to dispensing with principles in favor of that “which works” you dismiss the possibility of being able to determine if the action does indeed “work”.

      Dying for a cause
      January 29, 2009

      CNNIBN reports attempted self-immolation of a man in Chennai for the Lanka cause.


      A computer operator on Thursday attempted self-immolation here, outside a building housing central government offices, to draw attention to the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka, police said.
      Twenty-six-year–old M Muthu Kumaran was admitted to a government hospital in a serious condition with 95 per cent burns.
      According to police sources, Kumaran, who works for a PMK-owned Tamil periodical, said: “the attempt was to open the eyes of the central and state governments to the burning issue of Lankan Tamils”.


      It is quite surprising how so many people think they find value in dying for a cause which is so dear to them. What should be more important is to live for it, and fight.


      This question was handled immaculately by Ayn Rand in the Playboy interview.



      PLAYBOY: Would you be willing to die for your cause, and should your followers be willing to die for it? And for the truly nonsacrificial Objectivist, is any cause worth dying for?

      RAND: The answer to this is made plain in my book. In Atlas Shrugged I explain that a man has to live for, and when necessary, fight for, his values — because the whole process of living consists of the achievement of values. […] You ask me, would I be willing to die for Objectivism? I would. But what is more important, I am willing to live for it — which is much more difficult.

      (Are)we, the living?
      February 7, 2008

      Just some quotes as I read the first novel written by Ayn Rand, last.  Kira the central character, Russia the place.

      “How beautiful!” Said Lydia looking at a stage setting. “It’s almost real” . “How beautiful!”, Said Kira looking at a landscape.”It’s almost artificial” .

      “There were novels by foreign authors, in which a poor honest worker was always sent to jail for stealing a loaf of bread to feel the starving mother of this pretty young wife who had been raped by a capitalist and committed suicide thereafter, for which the all powerful capitalist fired her husband from the factory, so that their child had to beg on the streets and was run over by the capitalist’s limousine with sparkling fenders and a cheuffeur in uniform.”

      Kira:“I think that when in doubt about the truth of an issue, it’s safer and in better taste to select the least numerous of the adversaries.” 

      Leo: “Well I dislike womens’ questions, but I dont know whether I like a woman who won’t let me have the satisfaction of refusing to answer”. 

      Kira: “Do you believe in God, Andrei? No. Neither do I. But that’s a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know. What do you mean? Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they’d never understand what I meant. It’s a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do — then, I know they don’t believe in life. Why? Because, you see, God — whatever anyone chooses to call God — is one’s highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It’s a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. “

      Well, well!