Apologies

There is in fact a series of updates on its way, I've had a fairly hectic few weeks. Reasonably big things on the horizon. Who'da thunk creating a universal philosophy for myself would have been in any way hard?!

On Nick Griffin

I haven’t failed to notice Nick Griffin’s spectacularly repellent return to the limelight. His threats towards and irresponsible, callous and potentially illegal acts against (i.e. giving out their personal address on Twitter) the couple disallowed service from a (apparently irony impaired) Christian b&b are so crass, childish and moronic as to make redundant any statement of distaste by myself. Anyone with a worldview not based on fear and hatred can see his actions for the cynical, desperate pandering to the armchair-fascists (or bar-support fascists) he relies on for votes and publicity. He has been quiet and half forgotten for a time, so he needed to re-enter the arena with a splash, so he latched onto a rabble-rouser and went “all Nick Griffin” on it.

So far, so predictable.

What worries me is the reaction. I received an email earlier asking to sign a petition to get Griffin banned from Twitter. Now, the main reason given is the publishing of the couple in question’s address, which is in direct contravention of Twitters rules of use. Fair enough, he needs to be reprimanded for that within the rules. What worries me is a call for him to be silenced for being disgusting. I would respond to this with two points.

The first, for the angry amongst us, which includes myself, I have to admit. Let him tie his own noose. Whilst there are lots of very deluded people out there who will agree with his published sentiments, there are also many more who will despise them. He is broadcasting on Twitter, not targeting (this does not seem to occur to him, incidentally). Let him speak, and make himself look like a monster wanker. He is not Adolf Hitler, he is a hooligan, an angry child, a half-baked fury-merchant and he must be allowed to reveal himself as this. No amount of negative publicity can do as much damage to his reputation than his own blundering, blustering ignorance.

The second point is that if we start censoring people for having horrible views, we not only damage ourselves in the long run, but also raise the question of credibility regarding our own views. The first bit is obvious; any attack on free speech sets a volatile precedent which can be used to justify an incredibly wide range of action in the future, far away from the original intention, however well meaning. The second is, in the short term, a greater worry as it is less easy to undo. A furious response will often be interpreted as a sign of insecurity. Those who stand against gay rights will see a vengeful response to Griffin’s hot air as a sign that they have made a dent, and they will carry on with it until they feel they can cause real damage. The response to this is not spite or rage or censorship. It must be dismissal of an untenable philosophical and political decision. It must be calmly disassembled, discarded for scrap. A response to meet Griffin’s arguments head on risks only turning the rational into a mirror image of the irrational instead of the measured rejection that it should be. Rationality is not a simple opinion; it is the outcome education, observation and reflection.

Let’s not dignify Nick Griffin’s asinine claims of “heterophobia” with the anger he lives on. Let’s just dismiss him into oblivion.

The problem with Objectivism

Mark has asked me my opinions on the philosophy of Ayn Rand, i.e. Objectivism, and also for an explanation of my statement, "We are at the beginning of a new era of humanity. It is one which links us to all others, and makes a nonsense of internally consistent but externally incompatible belief systems."

I'll start off with my opinion on Objectivism. 

A disclaimer: not having enough of a Sunday afternoon to write a 1000 page philosophical treatment, I am treating Rand in a hugely simplified manner. 

Firstly, the idea that the universe exists in some kind of static, "true" sense; a logocentric "1", is extremely tenuous to begin with. To be pedantic, the exact nature of the universe is not directly measurable. On the very most basic scales of reality, one can only know the momentum or the location of a particle; not both simultaneously. Less pedantically, the conceit that the universe provably exists outside of the mind of obviously always going to be unsubstantiated and, with regards to our own selves, not actually wholly relevant. Whether we are only in our own solipsistic universe, a computer simulation, a divine creation or a mindless, infinite extent of matter and energy, no appreciable effect is had on the concepts of useful, admirable or even just normative behaviour. Finally, the idea that reality and the human mind exist discretely is observably untrue. Whilst, yes, our minds cannot blot out the stars or move the continents, they most certainly drive the environment within which we live, and willful ignorance of this is irresponsible to the point of inhumanity.

Perhaps all that is irrelevant.

What I truly take issue is is the concept of a prescriptive moral code for individual success. This is the central tenet of many religions and political/economic (the three can be readily conflated) systems and it remains fundamentally short sighted and unethical. Now let me make myself clear here: Violating the rights of fellow human beings is unacceptable. Removing the right to action, choice or life are abhorrent behavioral patterns. This does not, however, mean that individual rights trump everything else. Rand believed that a system of unrestricted capitalism was the ultimate expression of the preservation of individual rights. This is an astoundingly naive extrapolation which speaks more or her pathology than it does her philosophy. Capitalism demonstrably and repeatedly removes individual rights from the populace as it seeks to remove competition. I cannot overstate this point: capitalism is the un-systematic removal of competition over time. Human rights are competition to the rights of capital. The point that "well yes, so those capitalists are actually acting in a way that Rand would disagree with" only shows the fallacy of her stance. Capitalism is not practicable without this destruction of the rights of the less able. The idea that people can just magic up opportunity and enter into this corruptible golden city of unfettered individualism is facile; an insulting denial of the world created when individual power is abused as an inevitable outcome of unrestricted personal growth. That this is not a truth universally observed speaks only of the power of propaganda and its used-car salesman cousin, advertising.

Another point which needs emphasising: socialism is not the alternative. There is no alternative. There is no perfect politics. There is no ideal human arrangement. The striving for such a state is admirable but must always be misguided as we are, as a species, simply running an indefinite experiment with forever altering base-values. Rand sees capitalism as the state to which a civilisation should aspire to meet the needs of its individuals. Europe of a thousand years ago saw fundamental Christianity in the same light. The path to personal enlightenment is always sold by a serious salesman who first creates the image of a prophet, then a destiny. The most important invention is always a past.

Competitive capitalists are not prophets, nor are their pet politicians. Destiny is not personal wealth and happiness; these are merely side-effects. The past is proof that the universe can exist as a manifestation of both itself and of the human mind.

I'm aware that that was a reaction rather than an alternative, but hopefully I will be able to make my own views clear in time.

With regards to the statement, "We are at the beginning of a new era of humanity. It is one which links us to all others, and makes a nonsense of internally consistent but externally incompatible belief systems."

Simply put, I have faith that time and cooperation will bring forth certain methods of interacting which encourage and nourish all of humanity and I think the communications and transport technologies developed in the last century or so will be central to this process. In earnest, I think the twentieth and twenty-first centuries will be seen forever as the point at which human kind developed self-referential perception; the kind which, in nascent forms, has seen an increasingly peaceful, inclusive and altruistic wave of social change sweep through civilisations over the past few hundred years. We are in the midst of a new, technological enlightenment, constructing a mirror for ourselves. How long it will take to assimilate the whole image is a question for historians hundreds, perhaps thousands of years hence, and for philosophers forever after that.

On a brand spangly new blog

The time comes when a new start is more rewarding than bending the past into the present. I have been blogging for years under the name "Human Friendly", and in that time I have thrown all sorts into the mix. Photography, drawing, writing, random nonsense from around the net. Time to simplify. Photos, cartoons etc will continue to be hurled at my basic blog, humanfriendly.tumblr.com, but writing comes here.

I've been writing short stories for years, exploring different philosophical takes on the world, and I have been boring the ears off people for much longer on the same subject. I have increasingly found it useful to explore these concepts in a more essayist way. What comes out of my head varies from my views on the nature of justice, the divine, and the human soul to my visceral loathing of cephalopods (they have arms for a face. Not ok, nature. Not ok.). I've been planning this blog for a long time and it became something I... just didn't get around to. But I've decided now is time. I'm working on several pieces which will make their way up onto here in the coming weeks and I aim to keep it going indefinitely.

This may come across as wildly ambitious, but I intend to use this blog to forge an all-encompassing personal philosophy. It will be a philosophy of altruism, compassion and functionality. It must acknowledge diversity of mind and be able to account for that.
It will be fundamentally intolerant of violence.
It will not explain anything in terms not directly linked to experience.
It will not reject the past, but will emphasise the potential of the future.
It will be realistic but necessarily optimistic.

We are at the beginning of a new era of humanity. It is one which links us to all others, and makes a nonsense of internally consistent but externally incompatible belief systems.
We must acknowledge human suffering and progress, regardless of where it is on Earth and, in the future, beyond.

Selfishness has a sell-by date. Even if only by the most minute increment, I intend to hasten our progress towards that day.

Let's see where this goes...