A Young Republican's Guide to the Universe

OBJECTIVIST BLOG POST - The Will to Work or "Lethargy"

Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:50:50 -0600

The Will to Work or “Lethargy”

Ayn Rand: “The virtue of Productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man’s mind sustains his life, the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to himself. Productive work is the road to a man’s unlimited achievement and calls upon the highest attributes of his character: his creative ability, his ambitiousness, his self-assertiveness, his refusal to bear uncontested disasters, his dedication to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values. ‘Productive work’ does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.” (Source: Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness, essay: “The Objectivist Ethics.”)

Before I rendered my opinion, I thought I would give you, in full, Ayn Rand’s definition of Productiveness. In my life I have scoured the world for the perfect way to explain my feelings on the subject, and when I read Ayn Rand’s idea, especially that work is the “process by which man’s mind sustains his life”, I had finally found a jumping off point for my ideas.

When we are presented with the idea of Work throughout our lives, most of the populous shrugs and moans at the thought of having to peel themselves off of the couch to earn a meager living, in a “career” they have chosen, by emotional whim, to throw themselves into. They then complain about the “Rich” who have it “so easy” because they have “cushy jobs” and “no worries.” But the fact is those “Rich” people are those who have tailored careers for themselves that are lucrative and fill a rational need for productiveness within them. These “Rich” people did not necessarily start their lives in such plush settings – most had the will to work and a rational need to achieve their life goals.

Most people are too quick to sort life into easily identifiable clichés, instead of realizing that society need not be categorized and sorted. Instead, they should be judging these people on their life story and the path their life has taken, and the decisions they have made. Are those decisions rational or irrational? Emotional or non? Therefore the ideas of “Rich” and “Poor” should become things of the past. We should look at each separate person as their own living entity, without buzz-words and categories attached to them.

So, what of the idea of Work? We must look at it in terms of our own lives. Is it a chore that just “gets us through the day” and provides a meager “paycheck”? Or is it a budding career that is a stepping stone to bigger and better things? Example: How is being a cashier at McDonald’s going to advance your career in Architecture? How is working as a Garbage-man going to help you become a CPA? I do understand that sometimes people take these jobs because of a necessity for money, and that is understandable. But, and I firmly believe this, one can find a job, small as it may be, that connects better to their chosen profession. You need to have the Will and the Drive to find these jobs because, for the most part, they will not be as readily accessible as a job at McDonald’s or Walmart. People now are far too easy to jump at the first open job than search for a job more tailored to their life choices.

I also see people who have things handed to them, on a daily basis: whether that be money, a job or life values is beside the point. To have ANYTHING “handed” to us in life is the end of our own egocentric fight. It means that we have finally given up our values to the point where we are common prostitutes, working for the monetary or emotional “hand-outs” of others. I do not care if it is your family or your friends who hand your these things – it is irrelevant. I would rather turn down a billion dollars, because I know if I took it, it would be the eventual end of my working life. And a life without work, a life without that sense of drive, is not worth living.

That being said, what is the mass cultural opinion of Work? (As much as I hate looking at cultural trends, I am using this to make a point. Bear with me.) Most people, especially younger people, see Work as a Chose. They see it as something that is boring, laborious and a task to be done with the least amount of effort. They see it as something that need not be conquered, but tolerated. They see it as an escape from the gnawing clutches of the psyche. They should be seeing it as a way to achieve their goals in life.

And, if your goal in life is to obtain money, than who’s to say that a job at McDonald’s is not a viable option? But, if you choose money as the sole end to your job, you will find that it will eventually not become a strong enough driving force for you to be motivated in your job. Also, a job at McDonald’s is not as lucrative as being the CEO of a bank. I am just putting that fact out there because, even if your driving force is money, there are many better options to obtain the “almighty dollar.”

I see young people my age every day on Facebook complaining about the fact that their jobs are boring, non-lucrative and simple. Why do they feel the need to complain? Why do they not do something about it? Why do they not get up out of their seats and shout, “I will not live to be mediocre!” The fact is they have become complacent in their rut. They would rather sit at a desk, earning their meager wage, until the day they die than uproot their lives for the better. They would rather sacrifice their own values, their own drive, in favor of a life that favors emotionality and frustration.

How do we go about eradicating this cultural sluggish opinion to Work? We should begin to see, within ourselves, a change – a simple change, but a change nonetheless. We need to start fulfilling our own goals, our own drive and our own happiness, even if that may be in opposition to the cultural norms. We, as individuals, need to accept that work can be creatively satisfying, as well as monetarily satisfying. We can achieve our goals in life, that correspond to our own person value system and our own ethical system, and find a true Career that challenges us and forces us to get up every day, with our minds buzzing with anticipation. We should never become complacent to achieve the ordinary. We should strive to become extraordinary in our own person way, fulfilling our own needs and our own values. We should never tailor a career to fit our parents, our friends or any deity. We, as individuals, should make an independent decision as to what we are meant to do in our lives, based upon our lives as individuals.

The Egoist should never look to a society that changes its whims on a daily basis to prescribe them a career. They should look firmly, and solely, within themselves and find a career that combines our own personal values, our own work ethic and our own creativity. If any of these things are lacking, we will never truly be living a life that fulfills us and drives us towards the ascension of the ego.

So, all of you who are reading this, I ask you to take an assessment of your life: Do you have a career, or at least a job that is helping you claw your way to said career? Are you happy in your job and does it fulfill your values and your ethical system? Do you wake up every morning with a sense of the work that needs to be done or do you wake up with lethargy in your eyes and dread the coming day? I think if you take a quick assessment of your work values, you will become more dedicated to your craft and your value of work.

And if you do not have a career choice, or a job leading to said career, my only question is this: What are you waiting for?

The Objectivist Opinion on Gay Marriage - An Essay by Steven Krage, ME!

Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:56:14 -0600

The Objectivist Opinion on Gay Marriage in Illinois

Marriage is seen as a basic human right by the vast majority of the world. But to same, namely the extreme Christian Right, it is seen as something that should be strictly between a man and a woman. The fact they are describing it solely in terms of sexuality and gender should give a strong scent as to how valid their argument truly is. If one would take a lesson from Objectivism, they would learn that one should not be categorized as strictly male or female – they should be seen in terms of their intellect and their capacity to reason. But, as a culture, we are all far too quick to shove ideas and people into neat categories, instead of making a rational, specific argument for an issue.

So, what to make of the idea of Gay Marriage? To argue for or against, we need to look at the base idea: Marriage. Many of us are taught, by society and culture, that we need to define Marriage so they we are able to comprehend it. That definition over the years has been that marriage should be between a man and a woman, strictly and without exception. But what is the common theme in any definition of marriage? Love. “The standard of love”, according to Ayn Rand, “is the seriousness of the feeling and the values it is based on.” (Source: Ayn Rand Lecture in Boston at the Ford Hall Forum in 1968 entitled “On Living Death.”) In that definition, we see nothing of sexuality or gender – we only see the love in terms of the relationship between the two people in question. Then, we must ask, should anyone be able to judge a relationship besides the people who are engaged in it? In the Objectivist opinion the answer is a firm no.

In the United States we are far too quick to weigh our opinion on things that do not involve us in the slightest. Men are throwing their opinion in the ring in regards to abortion, which is a woman’s personal issue. Women are acting as experts in regards to the needs of the male body, such as dieting and physical stature. Poor are dictating how the rich should live and vice versa. Why is it so hard for the culture of the United States to understand that some issues are extremely personal in nature? The answer is we are living in a Collectivist society, partly because of our current President (but that is a different subject for a different issue. I will leave my opinion at that.) So, therefore, in the issue of Gay Marriage, straight people, who may not even have a homosexual or bisexual person in their lives at all, certainly have a very biased and undeserved opinion on how homosexual people should live their lives.

Thusly, you may ask why I have decided to weigh my opinion on this subject? I’m not homosexual, nor do I ever think I will be. It is not an issue that particularly affects me. But it does affect many of those people who I love, who throughout the years have become values in my life. Since this is the fact, I decided to weigh a rational, non-emotional, response to this issue. Almost every book and article I have read on the subject of Gay Marriage is fraught with emotional clichés, mostly because the people who are discriminated against are wallowing in their emotion, because they see that as their only option. This article will prove that that is not the only case, and they should not live in fear of being who they are.

What is Gay Marriage? In strictest terms it is marriage that is between two people of the same sex and gender. That may sound simplistic, but can you argue against it? Gay Marriage has become a sort of “buzz term” that extremists use to slander innocent people, who just want to live their lives in the fullest way possible. They want to achieve their own goals and live a life that is satisfying to them, personally. This is a very simple issue, but one that is among the most hotly debated around the world.

But, in this blog, I am responding to the idea of Gay Marriage in Illinois, in particular. A bill has already been passed by the Senate to allow Gay Marriage in Illinois, and it will soon be weighed on in the House of Representatives. The fact that Illinois can progress on this idea, despite much opposition, is positively astounding and worth the intense waiting period. But, I am also saddened by the fact that we need such intense debate just on the definition of one word: Marriage. Marriage will always mean different things to different people, so marriage should be defined on a personal basis. I agree that something needed to be done by the Illinois Legislature to rectify this injustice, but I am also astounded that we, as competent human beings, cannot be trusted by our government to define marriage on our own terms.

That is why I am glad Illinois has taken the initiative to introduce and promote this bill. My opinion, as a heterosexual male, is truly insignificant to anyone but myself, because this does not concern my own life. But I do have an opinion, and it is an opinion that has changed throughout the years. For those of you who have known me for years, you will have seen this transformation. I have changed from a bigoted, close-minded extremist who was easily influenced by my political party to someone who is willing to accepts humans as being human, and capable to deciding to live their own lives, independent of the desire and whims of others. I do not choose to accept the idea of the Homosexual Boogeyman that so plagues the diatribes of Conservatives. I do not choose to simply accept the word of any Holy Doctrine as the final word on how I should live my life. I do not chose to sit back and accept that my rights are being violated, so I do not expect any other competent, rational human to be any different.

Then, you may ask, what was Ayn Rand’s opinion on Gay Marriage specifically? Ayn Rand’s opinion is such: “All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral , but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults…adults should be completely free.” (Source: Ayn Rand Lecture in Boston at the Ford Hall Forum in 1968 entitled “On Living Death.”) Ayn Rand was able to voice her opinion, which was the fact that she did not necessarily condone homosexuality, but she also was able to confirm the fact that rational adult humans should be able to do whatever pleases them, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

How does Gay Marriage infringe on the rights of others? I cannot think of one logical argument as to whether Gay Marriage would discriminate against anyone. It is not as if roves of homosexual bandits would run amok, after the repeal of Gay Marriage bans, and terrorize the heterosexual community. They would simply, and finally, be able to live their lives to their fullest potential and finally be able to love the lives they have worked so hard to earn. Gay Marriage fits into the Objectivist Ethics, because it allows a personal to achieve their own happiness and their own rationally selfish needs.

My life as an Objectivist has led me to this opinion. Even a few months ago, I would thought I would rather die than accept homosexuals and bisexuals as my equals. That is a form of racism and, according to Ayn Rand, Racism is “the lowest, most crudely primitive form of Collectivism.” (Source: The Virtue of Selfishness, essay “Racism.”) She goes on to say that Racism is the idea that our identities are based off of our lineage, not off of our own personal ideas. Therefore, Racism can be affixed to Gay Marriage, because I was simply being racist against a group of people, independent of their ideas as individuals. I do not ever want to be described as low and crude ever again. My opinion has changed, independent of anyone else. This was a philosophical and political shift within myself, one that was borne from me identifying my own iniquities, my own “sins.”

That is why I am excited about the debate of Gay Marriage in Illinois finally being put to an end. Gay Marriage would finally be legalized, and thousands of people can finally achieve the pure happiness that has eluded them for so long, as I have. They can embrace their loved ones without shame and live a life that is satisfying, just as I do with my beautiful Melissa. They finally would not be afraid to embrace every aspect of their lives and achieve other goals that will lead to a more fulfilling life. If my value-system, as a heterosexual male, can accept homosexuals and bisexuals living lives together and achieving happiness, then I cannot see why this issue should be debated any longer. The shame of Gay Marriage Bans will not be a shame soon, thanks to Illinois Legislature.

The shame will be lifted soon.

It's Earl Hollimania!: Mrs. Voorhees' Home for Mentally Unstable Children

Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:40:19 -0600

It's Earl Hollimania!: Mrs. Voorhees' Home for Mentally Unstable Children:

wellthatsjustprime:

So here’s the plan: we travel back in fictional time, and save Jason from drowning so that Mrs. Voorhees doesn’t go all crazy. Then, we do some more fictional-time travel, and steal all the slashers at age 5, bringing them to Mrs. Voorhees so that she can adopt them. We will also need to give her…

scoobed: Betsy Palmer and I in 2008/9

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:37:32 -0600

scoobed:

Betsy Palmer and I in 2008/9

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:36:47 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:36:34 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:36:27 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:36:22 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:36:14 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:35:46 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:35:27 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:35:23 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:35:18 -0600

horror-movie-confessions: “I think the very first Friday the...

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:34:58 -0600

horror-movie-confessions:

“I think the very first Friday the 13th was the best one. Jason’s mother was more interesting than he is.”

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:34:46 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:34:38 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:34:29 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:34:21 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:34:09 -0600

Photo

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:34:03 -0600