As an anarchist it is generally assumed that I hold my beliefs as an impractical ideal with no relevance to human nature or reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hold my political beliefs (or rather anti-political beliefs) as thee most practical, realistic and relevant to human nature there are. Other wise I would not advocate them.
What is being inherently admitted by those that claim that capitalism is “merely practical” or that “socialism is a noble ideal” is that their ideals have no relevance to human nature. That what human beings should value is in direct contradiction with what human being are.
If an “ideal” is completely in contradiction with human nature then by what standard is it ideal? If a method is simply “practical” but the result is not desirable then by definition is it practical? Compared to what? If man and his nature is not considered the standard to base all ideals and what is considered practical to reach those ideals then what exactly is the standard?
Collectivism holds god or “society” (that is some how an entity entirely independent of the number of individuals that make it up) as the standard of value. The statement “what is good for society is the good” is not necessarily incorrect but backwards reasoning. Society has not goals, desires, or feelings, these are properties of the individual. The “good of society” is only a value because it is good for the individual because the individuals is the only thing capable of anything we can call “good”.
The collectivists have defined the “ultimate value” and what is worth striving for with no reference to the only entity capable of creating values: the individual. If you define what is desirable with out reference to the only being capable of desire then any correct conclusion you come to is simply a matter of coincidence. The collectivists name some random desire with no reference of a desire or how it is achieved. They may ask “isn’t it desirable to have no poor?” Surely that is desirable, but in the context of what? Treating man as an anti-rational, sick, and broken creature who cannot achieve his own goals, but must have a gun at his neck for his entire life? No, that is not desirable. (As for the question of if capitalism is a system that can reach the standard of prosperity that is a topic for an other blog, but in short I will say that the evidence to support the claim that it is not is lacking to say the least).
Usually conservatives agree that socialism is ideal, but simply impractical. In the same manner as a lunatic who lives his life in sadness because he wishes he could grown wings and fly. If you hold that the practical is in direct contradiction to the ideal and desirable then you have are just as guilty as the socialists for damning human nature, and by definition anything that you desire is in fact impossible. This is why values must be chosen on a rational basis rooted in human nature. What is ideal and practical can only be made as a reference to human nature and its relationship with nature its self. The goal of philosophy should be to understand that relationship and make it a healthy one. At that point, what is practical and ideal can finally be defined.
As long as the premise is held that the practical and the ideal are two separate and incompatible concepts then it doesn’t matter what conclusion we come to, it will be neither practical nor ideal. Because the only standard by which we can judge those values has been rejected: human nature.
Man is a rational being, that survives and thrives by the use of his mind and ambitions. Is man a heroic being that should live passionately, free, and always challenging the world around him? Or is man a sick and broken animal that should live in submission?
One conclusion is freedom, the other is the gun. Make your judgment very carefully.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment