Search the Community

You've probably heard our hero "big chatty forehead" say that the government doesn't exist because it's just an intellectual concept and has no basis in physical reality. Alternatively, he claims that "cars" and "clouds" exist. People might form a group that is collectively identified as the concept of "government." Hmmmm.... Isn't a car also just a concept? Some molecules might come together in any number of configurations to be collectively identified by the concept of "car." Similarly a bunch of water molecules (with some other molecule types to act as condensation anchors) might come together to be collectively identified as a "cloud." But aren't they also just concepts? How about "person?" A colony of biological cells which have come together to form what we conceptually call "human being?" Those cells don't even all share the same DNA. *Kilograms* of you are symbiotes in your gut, and their DNA isn't even in the same genetic ballpark with your homo sapien DNA. And the symbiote portion of the "person" colony can vary drastically from one person to the next. So how does a "person" become something that exists in reality, and not just a concept? Would it be a collection of molecules that have a crisply defined configuration? "Person" and "car" are pretty difficult to get a hard definition. "Cloud" might be extremely hard. I was then tempted to say, "OK, only atoms, molecules and photons exist in reality." But then ugh, quantum physics says, "not so fast genius boy!" OK, Fine! Only wave functions exist in reality, then! The wave functions sometimes collapse into photons, electrons, muons, quarks, etc. But what about string theory?? Dark matter? Dark energy. AAARRRGH! Forget it! I give up. Nothing exists in reality!! I've become a radical relativist. Maybe I should be kicked off the board. OK, maybe I'll hold off going completely crazy. Maybe my FDR family will save me from the abyss! Save me all you rationalists!! Just kidding about the relativist thing. A little humorous drama is what every dry philosophical question needs, right?

Logic begins when it is discovered that A is A, however, how does one discern what is discoverable without first knowing that A is A? Empiricism is a precept to our nature. After all, we are born as little scientists. Empiricism is a given. One cannot argue against it or for it without presupposing it. But if empiricism requires an understanding of logic, then is logic also a precept? (By precepts I mean involuntary knowledge about the world that is not conceptual, no different to how animals know things. It is regulated by our neurobiology.) If logic is a precept, then is it the case that logic is not a concept. But if logic is not a concept, then does logic exist in reality after all? Embedded in the neurons of our brain, so to speak?

A recent post made me remember a Ayn Rand concept that I found pretty powerful in the past. This concept is called "anti-concepts", and is defined as: Some terms that she considered anti-concepts were: consumerism, duty, ethnicity, extremism, simplistic, open and closed mind, isolationism... Are there new anti-concepts that you can think of that has have been introduced into the lexicon since Ayn Rand's days? One that immediately comes to my mind is "Islamophobia".

The idea of "country" is also what keeps freedom fighters fighting, rather than just moving and emigrating. Why fight militarily against governments when you can just move to another country? Sure there are costs, like having to learn another language, etc, but is it really worth dying or fighting? (For me personally, it's just not worth it. Just take your family and leave. You can't sway the outcome much, and there is huge personal risk. The potential prize is what, a better government for one country? If it was to rid of all governments, maybe I might think about it.)Why do freedom fighters fight? I'm sure a large part of their bag of reasons is nationalism, combined with ethnic pride. Having some moral and emotional stake in the geography inhabited by their own ethnicity that contains the traditions, culture, and maybe even physical monuments significant to history. The way I see it, they stand their ground and fight mainly because of the same lingering loyalty to their "country."So yes, the governments are bad, and they propagandize, cause wars, predate on their tax farms, etc. That's a given. I want to make a point beyond that, and shine my little light on the motivation of freedom fighters. If they didn't fight, then there would be no war (granted, it would be so much easier for governments, etc, but lets put that issue aside).As far as the motivation of rebel freedom fighters, the lingering idea and belief in "their country" is probably the biggest reason they stand and fight.