I have no idea what I'll be writing about.
The Blogs I have listed on the right-hand side of this page (amusingly, by the time someone reads this, that toolbar will probably be long gone) are my daily reads. I don't necessarily agree with their viewpoints but, at the bare minimum, they provide me with my daily shits and giggles.
Now, given all of that, I'm going to make an attempt to describe what I see as the most likely path I'll be taking in writing. First and foremost, my political and economic views. If you want a label, go with "economic conservative" and "social liberal." Libertarian might be close, but, in tradition of anyone whining about being labeled, I will state that most libertarians are only thus because they don't like the two major parties in the United States. I'd claim objectivism, but that's just going to lead to some dumbass trying to point to Rand to make an argument. I believe in rationality and reason above all else, but with a fundamental, epistomological ideal that is in conflict with most who wave the flag of rationality. So let's try and explain that one, hm?
First, I believe (yes, believe) that logic is a system of reasoning. It is not the only method of reaching a conclusion, but it is, thus far, the only one with a solid track record and which produces informations and conclusions that are, for all methods of sane observation, correct or at least testable. Logic is not in opposition to any other form of reasoning or decision-making, nor is it some kind of parallel to emotion. Logic must be learned - it has rules and principles. Logic is, above all else, mathematically sound. Given all of this, I embrace logic and its associated rationality not out of pragmatism but out of principle. Logic allows for a philosophically consistent viewpoint, as well as an accurate way of conveying and arguing information. It has no parallel in history.
Science is a pragmatic application of logic and reasoning within the constraints of a certain methodology. Because science relies on mathematically sound logistics and because its admitted pragmatic nature focuses very heavily on testing and testability, science has thus far proven to be the only consistent means of discovery.
If you dismiss either science, logic, reason, or the fruits thereof in argument, I will dismiss you. You cannot logically argue against the tenets of logic - this is not only contradictory, but is laughably stupid.
Given that, understand that science is a process, and one that only idiots regularly declare as complete. Thus we refer to fundamental concepts as theories - understand that we do this in mathematics, as well. Beyond the basic axioms of mathematic processes, theories that we have reliably proven within the constraints of mathematic modeling are still called theories. This is not philosophical uncertainty. That is, we do not refer to things as theories because we are unsure of them or we think it likely someone will disprove them later - we do this because, above all else, science maintains that it must be testable.
I therefore reject God and spirituality. I do this out of principle (neither fit science, logic, or basic reason) and out of pragmatism (I have not seen, heard, or been presented otherwise with evidence for either, nor has anyone conceivably demonstrated what the functional difference such ideas would have is). I do not reject argument in favor of either of these, however. I am not an atheist with a capital A - I find, for the most part, that most atheists have a certain religious fervor and economic / political views which are unsustainable.
Continuing on that note, if you do choose to argue in favor of religion, note that it is in your realm of responsibility to make points. I need not assert the nonexistence of something, for the same reason I need not assert the nonexistence of unicorns on the moon. If you cannot accept this, you are dismissed.
Having stated that, let me make something evident: I am not anti-religious. I tend to find that my political and economic views are better grounded with the religious base than with the non-religious.
In terms of basic epistemology, I maintain that logic is a learned, practiced process. Ergo, truth is not self-evident (though it is absolute). Arguments do not make their absolution evident, but they do make their validity as the best arguments known pretty easily. Unfortunately, they must do so by the process of debate. I therefore keep a flexible mentality.
I do not keep an "open mind." I arrive and hold the views I have because I have given them a lot of thought and they have been strenously tested and argued and they have held. I am, nonetheless, an emotional creature. I may not, therefore, accept a better argument outright - I may tell you to go fuck yourself first and have to go give it some thought. Rest assured, however, that I will give it thought. I will only dismiss those arguments with are contradictory in nature (arguments against the nature of argumentation, for one).
Politically and economically, I believe in individualism. There are no rights but those which the individual holds and all group manifestations thereof must be entirely voluntarily or they are immoral. All government action, all law, all taxation - all of these are enforced. That is, government does all things with a gun pointed in the direction of the populace. I believe taxation is immoral, but I do not reject some of the good it has done (I question the opportunity costs, however). I understand that my complacency in a governed society and my complacency in the taxation of myself and of others is inherent slavery. I will, however, do nothing to directly support the enforcement of this.
The only moral exchange is voluntary.
Now, again, this is based in principle. There are certain philosophical manifestations that I will dismiss out of hand. If you believe in collective right or in collective will then I will dismiss you. Understand no circumstances do you ever have the right to force me to act. That does not mean I will not comply - I hold these principles, but I will sacrifice substantial amounts of my own freedom for complacency.
I don't vote.
Out of principle and out of pragmatism, I am a capitalist. In principle, capitalism is the only system which relies entirely on voluntarily, willing exchange. Capitalism is a direct manifestation of freedom. Pragmatically, capitalism has demonstrated itself the most efficienct means of production, "wealth distribution," and fairness. I have never seen any evidence for the supposed evils of capitalism which could not be directly attributed to use of force (which is against the tenets of freedom and of capitalism) or use of force via proxy (via government).
Understand?
Now, in terms of political or social views, I maintain staunch individualism. I believe it is immoral to place demands on another individual, though I believe it is ethical for one of us to look out for another. You can call this enlightened self-interest, if you will.
In terms of particular "issues," I will name only two here because I am uncertain on them:
First, there is the death penality - the premise of capital punishment. Provided you accept government is the only near-justifiable use of force (excepting force in retaliation to force), then it may follow that government has the role of policing individuals. I accept this on pragmatic terms. The execution or elimination of freedom of an individual by a collective will is about one of the most heinous things I can think of. On the other hand, there are people out there who need to die. I have given little in terms of thought to this subject. At the moment, I support it.
Second, there is abortion. I dismiss religious arguments for obvious reasons. However, I reject the popular notion that science has provided anything but a methodology for opinion, here. It is a personal (and, by extension, social) view for at which point something becomes living or becomes human. The same applies to the premise of humanity in potentia. Science cannot establish a criteria for something which has a purely philosophical basis. At best, it can present a classification in terms of common or accepted nomenclature, but these are linguistic and categorical concerns - they still fail the address the fundamental question. At the moment, I also support the right to abortion within common constraints (pretty much what a lot of states have already in terms of latest allowed abortion).
For the most part, I tend to ignore discussions on individual "issues." Generally speaking, a philosophically consistent and logical perspective allows the extension of such views into any particular domain. However, I will usually dismiss arguments purely in pragmatist terms. Take, for example, private ownership of firearms. Regardless of any statistics or effects of owning a firearm, it fundamentally comes down to one premise - a gun is property, and I have the right to property.
It should be pretty evident what my views are on the use of drugs and such are, as well.
So, having stated all of that shit, let me get into personal components:
I am a programmer by trade with a strong interest in music. I am fairly young (and arrogant) with an accredited university degree in computer science (I won't be capitalizing any of the nonsense anytime soon). For frame of reference, I finished "high school" a week after I turned fourteen.
I started balding when I was nineteen so I took to just shaving my head. It's shiny.
I'm right-handed but I wear a watch on that arm.
I live in Florida, but I hail from Texas.
That is.. pretty much all I can think of for the moment. I'm sure more will follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment