To me nihilism is like looking at a pile of bricks and despairing that it isn't a house. The assertion is correct, but the wrong action is inferred. Our existence in the present moment is absolute fact, including the qualities of that existence; we do have goals, which may be pursued without concern that they are invalidated by our nature. Intelligence is the ability to defy nature.

The universe doesn't have any inherent meaning, we give it meaning just as we effectively bring it into being through our perception.

The human race is God.

I tend to figure that Capitalism works on a presumption of universal greed / motivation to obtain assets (liquid assets, property, etc.). It has some failings, particularly when it fails to account for other human motivations, but the reality is that it works quite well (witness its history, including the low points) even though or perhaps because it is focused on that single premise.

Marxism tempered into communism or held in a more "utopian" unaltered state seems to me to suggest that it would work on a presumption of a benevolent, fair guiding entity/group/motivator that keeps society moving forward to universal benefit. Its failing, by my estimation, is that it doesn't account for the corruption that such power will inevitably create when left in the hands of one or few.

Capitalism takes a dark, selfish element of human nature (but one that is definitely there) and attempts to turn it in a positive direction. Marxism seems to postulate on how great things would be if we didn't have those selfish elements in our nature, at the expense of acknowledging real human nature.

Then again, I'm by no means an expert or even particularly well informed -- perhaps I am merely falling prey to the American culture of pro-Capitalist propaganda. In any case, I thought the video was very interesting and informative, but not in a way that persuaded me to doubt Capitalism as our correct path moving forward -- particularly not enough to replace it with any variant of Marxism.

This may be a bit of semantics, but actually I believe it would be better if everyone were a bit more human. I tend to view our selfish and self-destructive tendencies as inhumane, particularly in the results they produce in the world around us, despite the fact that they are a part of our nature. Our humanity--what ultimately separates us from animals--is, I believe, our compassion, our love, our ability to voluntarily sacrifice our own desires or impulses for the good of those around us. So, I don't think I'm really advocating fundamental truths outside of human nature. Rather I am advocating fundamental truths that stem from human nature. I think religion is just one way of trying access or explain those truths. Of course, I believe religion often gets co-opted by people in order to pursue other goals, but I'll stand by my statement above that the same is true of any organized system--including science. I think the current debate raging about global warming is a perfect example of how science can be just as easily co-opted to support alternative agendas. Politicians, corporations, and even entire nations are twisting the facts that science produces to further their own ambitions. Please note, I'm not making an argument here for or against global warming. I'm merely making the observation that science can be co-opted just as easily as religion. This, to me, undercuts Harris's argument that science can somehow come to any sort of moral conclusion or that it is somehow superior to religion in discovering moral truths.

>> ^Hybrid:
Aaaaah, a perfectly good video given a topic-of-the-moment title.
What did Conan say about cynicism again? Cos I think a lot of people on the sift didn't listen.


You're absolutely right of course, but you'll have to forgive us our nature.

How do you stop hatred and glorification of violence? Are you trying to say I can't enjoy a good 50 cent rap, or watch scarface again?

I think violence is in our nature, we cannot deny it. We can however acknoledge it without doing harm to our neighbors.

Poverty, lack of opportunity and social inequality are at the root of violence.

IMO.

>> ^gwiz665:
Rights are decided, not given.


Natural rights are neither decided upon nor given. Legal rights are decided upon, and cannot infringed upon our natural rights.

Studies like these make me wonder how much of our "natural" sleep patterns have been affected by the social construct. If left to our own devices from the time of birth, would we sleep more frequently for less amount of time?

There is no difference in my mind between a ban on bikinis and a ban on public nudity. As a society, we force each other to cover up. To what degree we must cover our natural gifts is determined by the community we live in.

If we truly were free, we could walk around naked with no fear of reprisal. If you are not ok with nudity, then you should have no problem taking it a little further and saying bikinis don't always cover enough. And that goes double for speedos.

Personally, I have no problem with a stricter dress code at a public facility. If they try to tell me girls can't walk around my private pool naked, then we will have a problem.

Im sure someone will give me hell for this but I only have one more thing to say about the whole religious people are stupid argument. Again you assume all people who believe in god or a god are the same. I honestly dont give a shit who you are what you are and or what you believe in unless your causing harm to others. And, its not really religion that messes the world up but people who use religion for a reason. Like the old saying goes guns dont kill people, people do. Its in our nature or in our genes does not matter how you preach to people you take all the religions out of the world today people will come up with another excuse to do what they do to the world.
Look I dont know if there is or isnt a god all I know is that its hard for my mind to accept that life and everything we know is some great accident or some strange coincidence. Im not stupid because I want to believe there is more to life than this fragile body that I can loose at any time or place. Because I believe in god Im not to blame for the worlds problems rather the world as a whole is to blame it matters not there excuse.

Very, very nicely said.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
>> ^chilaxe:
5 words should suffice for anyone who's still parroting that homosexuality isn't natural.

Homosexuality is common in nature.

That is good for refuting some of the fundamentalist's arguments, but this guy cuts even deeper than that. The whole point is that whether something is "natural" or not has no place in a discussion about ethics in general and gay marriage in particular. There are a lot of things we without surround ourselves with that are completely unnatural, and there are many things that are natural that we would rather see extinguished. Ebola is natural, and so are tsunamis. Men are genetically disposed to be more violent than women. The great thing about being human is that we can step above our natural impulses. Whether we should do so or not is completely unrelated to whether the impulses are "natural" or not. The decision has to come from a rational moral discourse. And taking the concept of "natural" out of the picture, that discourse is rather simple in this case: Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. --> It shouldn't be illegal.

>> ^chilaxe:
5 words should suffice for anyone who's still parroting that homosexuality isn't natural.

Homosexuality is common in nature.

That is good for refuting some of the fundamentalist's arguments, but this guy cuts even deeper than that. The whole point is that whether something is "natural" or not has no place in a discussion about ethics in general and gay marriage in particular. There are a lot of things we without question surround ourselves with that are completely unnatural, and there are many things that are natural that we would rather see extinguished. Ebola is natural, and so are tsunamis. Men are genetically disposed to be more violent than women. The great thing about being human is that we can step above our natural impulses. Whether we should do so or not is completely unrelated to whether the impulses are "natural" or not. The decision has to come from a rational moral discourse. And taking the concept of "natural" out of the picture, that discourse is rather simple in this case: Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. --> It shouldn't be illegal.

danny

"Perhaps if i was able to have a conversation with someone who knew it back to front, then i would be able to give a better opinion on whether or not it would work."

Go ahead, ask any question you want. I will converse with you. I don't know everything about it, but I have agreed with and advocated it without regrets for 43 years.

But first be clear that you are only dealing in this particular issue with one portion of her philosophy, politics. And that politics is not a stand-alone set of principles. Its validity depends entirely on the more fundamental branches of Objectivism that define the nature of existence (metaphysics), the nature of our means of grasping and retaining our knowledge of existence (epistemology), and given the nature of those and of human beings (in principle), by what standards we should measure our choices of thought and action in our quest to survive and thrive in accordance with our nature as the beings that we are (ethics).

That is just a peek at the monumentality of the subject. But you do not have to be an Olympic swimmer before you can wade into the shallows. Also, it doesn't make any difference where you start. If you have an open, honest mind, it will take you where you need to go.

Since politics is at the top of your present interest list, start here:

Capitalism is not right because it works. Rather, it works because it is right. It is right because it is derived from and dependent on a proper definition of the nature of human beings. To wit: Life or death is the fundamental alternative for all living entities. Humans are the only living beings that cannot pursue either alternative by their automated bodily functions alone. Our unique means of survival is our capacity to know the nature of existence and to choose the actions we take to deal with it - i.e., we are rational, volitional beings.

If one chooses the alternative goal of death, no ethical or political system is needed. But if one chooses to live -- to survive and thrive -- then life itself becomes ipso facto the standard of measure for all of your choices of how to think and act and what values to pursue - your ethics. If you lived outside of any society, your ethic -- your moral rights and wrongs would be your only governor. You would succeed or fail in accordance to how correctly or incorrectly your ethic was defined and implemented in your daily life.

But when humans live together in a society and interact in long term relationships, a problem arises. The volition that enables us to choose, inherently enables us to err. The autonomy one would have over one's own life outside a society can be destroyed in a society by the sole enemy of freedom, physical force. Therefore, in order to extend a proper human ethics in the context of the life of an individual into the context of a society of men, coercion by physical force must be removed from human interactions and all exchanges of values among men must be voluntary.

Now re-read the defining principle of Rand's radical capitalism as I stated it in my comment above. That is a moral principle. If you can undermine the logic of the morality underpinning that principle, we can begin to talk about capitalism not working. But, if you can't, you should begin to look deeper into it than you have. For if autonomy is a moral prerequisite, then our present political system that condones the use of coercion by majorities to take what they want from minorities is the system that does not work. It does not work primarily because it is immoral. And the left and right are equally guilty. Only the kinds of tyranny they favor differ.

Note also, that it is a dangerous leap from being unable to imagine how a system you understand so little would function to the claim that it simply would not work at all. Your intolerance of bastards is a suitable example. What Rand achieves in her system is that bastards may continue to be bastards in spades, because they have in her system no access to power. The government in her system has but one job and no other: rid the nation of coercion. No one can acquire anything from anybody in such a society without enticing them to trade it to them voluntarily.

And keep in mind, that autonomy is the freedom to exercise your own volition, which is a freedom to be fallible yourself that you must grant others as well. To be a good capitalist, you must tolerate the absolute right of others to be as irrational as they want so long as they do not force it on you or anyone else.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

There's hardly been daily Siftquisitions - there's been a total of 1 since the new system was brought in.

We are growing though it's true. Lucky and I have reached our breaking point as admins in dealing with the kind of egregious selfish ego-centric community damage that people like Choggie and Bill'O inflict.

Our natural response is to rely on the community to help and run the site. That's been the way we've tried to model the Sift from the beginning.

Put the power to run the site in the hands of Sifters and distribute the power to as many points as possible.

You really need different lists for pundits and for Obama's speech itself.

That list will pretty much serve for the pundits, though you're forgetting:

• Martin Luther King (also "The Mountaintop", "I Have a Dream" or just "the Dream")
  
• FDR
  
• Ronald Reagan
  
• "unity" or "unite the country" or "the country is united"
  
• Mention of the White House being built by slaves
  
• Talk of a "post-racial America" as if such a thing were possible or a good idea
  
• Descriptions of the massive security measures, to remind you that not everyone loves him
  
• Talk of the size of the burdens facing him (drink twice if Bush is actually referenced by name)
  
• Talk of how even conservatives are rallying to him (drink twice if the same pundit immediately mentions how that's going to piss off liberals, three times if the pundit also makes it clear that he or she disagrees with Obama's plans)
  

For Obama's speech:

• Change, used as a verb
  
• "This was never about me, it has been about you"
  
• "There are no Red states or Blue states, there are only the United States"
  
• The theme that this is only the beginning of our work, not the end
  
• The theme that we must work together to build the America we want
  
• "Let us"
  
• "We must"
  
• "The better angels of our nature"
  
• "Hope"
  

Of course, that list will get you outrageously drunk.

It's Christmas so we'll stop
It's on with the lights to warm the dark
It can cloak elsewhere
As the rot stops for today
Let the rot stop just for one day
Only good red eyes, red suits, and faces will radiate
And the cold will hide its face
Now the cold is turned away
We can be best friends with the people we hate
'Cause we've all got blood
And it's warmer than you think
Yeah it is warm and it is thick
We all breathe out clouds
We're built to give at least once each year
Now that's better than never I guess
And life might never get better than this
With the perfect excuse for our natures to change
And wear shiny clothes
Oh it's Christmas so press pause and we'll go

Oh it's Christmas so we'll stop
'Cause the wine on our breath puts the love in our tongues
So forget the names
I called you on Christmas Eve
In fact forget the entire year
Don't reflect just pretend and you won't feel scared
You won't feel a thing
'Cause it's all been tucked away
And once you're tucked in bed
You'll hold on to the day for the last few seconds
Your gray dull face is protected from the wind
And I'll protect you I promise I will
And the rest of our lives will be just like Christmas
With fewer toys
You're a good girl I'm a good boy
So I thought

Oh it's Christmas so we stopped
Were it not for the tick of the clock
And the spinning of the Earth in space
We could always be this way
And as we sleep at the fall of the day
In the room next door the tree lights brighten the rodents' eyes
And catches a glimpse of the dust beginning to rise

The next day life went back to its bad self
The next day life went back to its bad self
The next day life went back to its bad self
The next day life went back to its bad self