A Refutation of Primitivism
Posted by rbroberg 8 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
Anarcho-Primitivism is anti-Objectivist to the fullest extent and anti-life to the extent that human beings are rational. The quandary is that if irrationality is making a comeback, even compounding upon itself as irrationality for the sake of irrationality, then who is to stop this from occurring? Which is to ask: To what extent is my selfishness bound up in lifting up people's minds for their betterment and therefore my own? Let me address these one by one.
Anarcho-Primitivism is the philosophic identification with pre-historic social systems. Hunter gatherer societies are the preference in this school of thought. But it was not a "primitive" man who expressed anarcho-primitivism and devised its tenets. He was instead a literate man. The view that the alteration of the natural world is negative stems from a kind of combination of Parmenides' belief that change is impossible and of Heraclitus' belief that opposites have a common base. The latter can be seen in both Marx and Nietzsche. The importation of these pre-Socratic views is a vivid illustration of how the intellectual world has willingly contributed to and sought out its own demise.
Objectivism teaches that the pinnacle of ancient thought was Aristotle and it is true that his philosophical achievements established the foundation for Rand's successive philosophic system. The enshrinement of reason is no mistake, it is absolutely necessary to expose the various Platonic and pre-Socratic mistakes attributable to modern philosophers. "To expose" and not to assuage because to assuage or placate is to compromise on principles in this context. The task of the intellectual confronted with the specter of these errors, which in this era should rightly be ascribed to their doers as deliberate, is indeed to expose and remove (cut out) irrationality from the appearance of rationality, i.e. to sever the rotten roots rationalism (i.e. rational idealism).
Regarding the last question, the motivation and goal-directed action determine the specific goals of a rational person. With the realization that Objective thought leads to philosophical, intellectual, and scientific growth, our selfish interest out to be a better world. The argument against this is "I cannot benefit beyond my lifespan". He who has perished cannot experience the wonders and miracles of future enlightenment, so to speak. Yet this view of selfishness is completely solipsistic. Do not make the mistake of Bernie Madoff. The view that immediate material reward for work is the proper definition of selfishness is NOT ACCURATE. Howard Roark worked years to perfect his craft and eventually destroyed it in order to claim it. He worked for the sake of his craft and his love of it in the same way that John Galt thought for the sake of life and his love of it. The bridge on the John Galt Line would have lasted well into the next century.
The argument against selfishness is that impermanence reduces life to meaningless robotics of reproduction of death. Since all men are mortal, then selfishness demands there is no reason to care for the world beyond one's own existence. Therefore, altruism - living for the sake of others - is the only recourse because some invisible chain linking the lives of those who sacrificed themselves to others lives on in our place. This is the god of the altruists. Yet it is clear that if each person sacrifices himself to the next, then each of the members of the human race has done so in a circle of self-sacrifice benefitting no entity but the invisible chain or god or whatever else. But this impersonal god then lives on the human sacrifice, which must be a mistake since God is supposed to be merciful and just. It is impossible to conceive of a merciful and just God that also requires every man to sacrifice himself to the interest of others while denying himself the benefit of receiving the good, even from himself!
Im summation, rationalism required supernaturalism in order to maintain the premise that consciousness precedes existence. Modernism required collectivism in order to maintain the premise that altruism trumps selfishness. Thus altruism and primacy of consciousness are corollaries. Both require the defaulting on or stealing of the concept of objective reality. This is ample argument to disprove Marx and therefore also Heraclitus. Parmenides and Heraclitus has opposite views on change and yet each of these views are smuggled into Anarcho-Primitivism. In this way, Anarcho-Primitivism, like most forms of mysticism, is without a coherent, reducible, hierarchical systematization of concepts and must therefore lead to contradictory results. Contradictions cannot exist and reality does exist, therefore, contradictory results are false. It is not a contradiction to work for a better world after we die, so long as it is in one's own rational interest.
Anarcho-Primitivism is the philosophic identification with pre-historic social systems. Hunter gatherer societies are the preference in this school of thought. But it was not a "primitive" man who expressed anarcho-primitivism and devised its tenets. He was instead a literate man. The view that the alteration of the natural world is negative stems from a kind of combination of Parmenides' belief that change is impossible and of Heraclitus' belief that opposites have a common base. The latter can be seen in both Marx and Nietzsche. The importation of these pre-Socratic views is a vivid illustration of how the intellectual world has willingly contributed to and sought out its own demise.
Objectivism teaches that the pinnacle of ancient thought was Aristotle and it is true that his philosophical achievements established the foundation for Rand's successive philosophic system. The enshrinement of reason is no mistake, it is absolutely necessary to expose the various Platonic and pre-Socratic mistakes attributable to modern philosophers. "To expose" and not to assuage because to assuage or placate is to compromise on principles in this context. The task of the intellectual confronted with the specter of these errors, which in this era should rightly be ascribed to their doers as deliberate, is indeed to expose and remove (cut out) irrationality from the appearance of rationality, i.e. to sever the rotten roots rationalism (i.e. rational idealism).
Regarding the last question, the motivation and goal-directed action determine the specific goals of a rational person. With the realization that Objective thought leads to philosophical, intellectual, and scientific growth, our selfish interest out to be a better world. The argument against this is "I cannot benefit beyond my lifespan". He who has perished cannot experience the wonders and miracles of future enlightenment, so to speak. Yet this view of selfishness is completely solipsistic. Do not make the mistake of Bernie Madoff. The view that immediate material reward for work is the proper definition of selfishness is NOT ACCURATE. Howard Roark worked years to perfect his craft and eventually destroyed it in order to claim it. He worked for the sake of his craft and his love of it in the same way that John Galt thought for the sake of life and his love of it. The bridge on the John Galt Line would have lasted well into the next century.
The argument against selfishness is that impermanence reduces life to meaningless robotics of reproduction of death. Since all men are mortal, then selfishness demands there is no reason to care for the world beyond one's own existence. Therefore, altruism - living for the sake of others - is the only recourse because some invisible chain linking the lives of those who sacrificed themselves to others lives on in our place. This is the god of the altruists. Yet it is clear that if each person sacrifices himself to the next, then each of the members of the human race has done so in a circle of self-sacrifice benefitting no entity but the invisible chain or god or whatever else. But this impersonal god then lives on the human sacrifice, which must be a mistake since God is supposed to be merciful and just. It is impossible to conceive of a merciful and just God that also requires every man to sacrifice himself to the interest of others while denying himself the benefit of receiving the good, even from himself!
Im summation, rationalism required supernaturalism in order to maintain the premise that consciousness precedes existence. Modernism required collectivism in order to maintain the premise that altruism trumps selfishness. Thus altruism and primacy of consciousness are corollaries. Both require the defaulting on or stealing of the concept of objective reality. This is ample argument to disprove Marx and therefore also Heraclitus. Parmenides and Heraclitus has opposite views on change and yet each of these views are smuggled into Anarcho-Primitivism. In this way, Anarcho-Primitivism, like most forms of mysticism, is without a coherent, reducible, hierarchical systematization of concepts and must therefore lead to contradictory results. Contradictions cannot exist and reality does exist, therefore, contradictory results are false. It is not a contradiction to work for a better world after we die, so long as it is in one's own rational interest.
