A Quick Argument Against Universal Healthcare

I'm sitting in a restaurant with my family, so I don't have much time, but an idea just came to me and I feel I must write it down. Proponents of universal healthcare argue that everyone has a RIGHT to healthcare. They fail to answer who is to provide it though. Healthcare is a service that is created by people. There is no RIGHT to the services of others; that would mean enslavement. Proponents of universal healthcare are forgetting that in order for there to be a right to healthcare, there must be a right to the services of others, ie, there must be a right to enslave others in service to yourself. Naturally this is absurd. Every argument for universal healthcare can be shut down by simply asking, "who is to provide it?" "Who must we force to do it?"

Virtue and Value - Bumped Thread

Simply put, ethics are the codes that guide our thoughts and actions; they determine the purpose of our life. This seems to be an easily understandable concept, and really, it should be. Why then, does it seem to be so often neglected? The trouble, I think, stems from the education we receive at early ages. For example, we're taught honesty is a virtue. Great, but when the only answer I can get out of my peers about why we should be honest is: "Because lying is bad," we have our problem. People focus so much on secondary causes (virtue) that they are unable to answer or forget about the fundamental issues determining virtue, values. A proper system of ethics cannot exist without first defining values that determine such a moral system.  Virtue presupposes value, because the purpose of virtue is to keep and achieve what we value.

Values: (Objective) Reason, Self Esteem, Purpose

Virtues: Rationality, Pride, Productivity, Integrity, Honesty, Independence, Justice.


Before I give examples and definitions of these principles, I need to first explain the importance of objective values. By objective, I mean based on facts. Our core values are absolute and uncompromisable. They are not whimsical, and are by no means utilitarian, in which concepts such as good and evil are subjective from day to day. In the simplest sense, A is A, never B, just as B is B, never A. This may seem extreme, but let me illustrate an example. How many people do you know, from politicians, to coworkers, to friends, that claim to like honesty, integrity, and justice? The majority of them. How many do you know that truly adhere to the virtues they want to live by? The number is probably much smaller. The reason for this is avoidance, conscious or unconscious. People try to live by virtue without ever bothering to understand the value systems that determine it. The results can be seen all over the world today: Religious radicals who claim that killing is evil, yet are willing to take a life on a whim should someone disagree with them. Politicians who preach family value, yet cheat on their spouses. Rioters who demand "equality" from the government, but are willing to violate the rights of others by burning private property. These are all extreme, but the results of non-objective values are ultimately all the same: irrationality and hypocrisy. 

Reason: Living within the context of reality, ie, dealing with facts. Individuals often spend too much time debating decisions on what "could, would, or should, be." They make a tragic mistake by focusing on ideas that are disconnected from reality. As humans, reason is our means to survival. We have few other advantageous abilities.

Corresponding virtue, Rationality:
Rationality is achieved by living in accordance with honesty, justice, independence, and integrity.

Honesty: We are consistent with the facts of reality. People fail when they disconnect themselves from reality. Lying is ultimately self-destructive, because it forces one to be in constant conflict with reality in order to maintain the untruth. 

Integrity: We will always act consistently with our principles, because our principles were determined through objective logic. Short term benefits are considered, but they are never able to justify acting inconsistently with our principles, because ultimately that will be a long-term detriment. We will not compromise our values under any circumstances.

Justice: We will not exchange a higher value for a lower one. We reward individuals based on their contributions to accomplishing our goals and their adherence to our values. Those who contribute the most will earn the most. Essentially we are a meritocracy in the purest sense, and our creed is "Judge and prepare to be judged yourself." (with reason)

Independence: The essence of this entire system of value and virtue is individualism. We push ourselves and others to achieve their maximum potential through individual thought and effort. Creativity is only possible for the individual. Teamwork is important, but only through voluntary agreement that acknowledges that our minds are separate. The collective mob is never the standard for value. Individuals are responsible for their own thoughts and actions, and will be evaluated accordingly. 


Self- Esteem: A strong work ethic, self motivation, and an expectation to succeed. As you can see, this last part, confidence, could be easily misconstrued if we didn't first value Reason. While we have self esteem, we recognize areas in which we must improve. One should have strong personal goals and place their long term self interest on the highest pedestal.

Corresponding virtue, Pride: Pride was once said to be the highest of all virtues, because it presupposed all the rest. One can only truly be proud if they adhere to all of their values, objectively.  Pride comes from living honestly, independently, etc. Reason again, is key to this virtue, as pride can easily turn into arrogance if once doesn't maintain rationality. 



Purpose: I once read a quote by Albert Camus that said:
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."

The most important question one can answer is: "Why live?" It seems so simple but it's so often neglected. Ask yourself, what are you living for? Yourself? Others? Can you truly ever live for others? I've found the purpose of my life is the experience of living in whichever way I rationally see fit.

Corresponding virtue, Productivity: 
Once we know purpose, we can commit ourselves to taking the necessarily actions to produce happiness.


The Six L's to Living:
Live Consciously: One remains ever-aware of the present moment. One of my favorite writers, Seneca, once wrote that one should remember the past, live in the present, and anticipate the future.

Live Purposefully: One seeks to reach ones highest potential. "No Goals, no Glory!"

Live with Integrity: One knows and understands his/her principles and lives by them consciously and consistently. "He sets his feet on a rock, not upon sinking sand." - Godly Man, one of my favorite songs.

Live with Self-Acceptance: One lives accepting who they are at the present moment, but acknowledges there are still things they desire to become. 

Live with Self-Assertiveness: One must honor himself and his values with word and action.

Live with Self-Responsibility: One is responsible for their own destiny. Some events may be out of ones control, but in the grand spectrum of life, the individual must create the world they wish to live in. This comes from my favorite quote. "Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.. it is real.. it is possible.. it's yours." - Ayn Rand

Some Thoughts on Minimum Wage Laws

I haven't posted much in a while, partly out of laziness, but mainly because I'm currently working as an intern on the Ron Paul 2012 Campaign. We're working on launching a campaign in Louisiana and implementing the same strategy there, that we're using in Iowa. Those details are superfluous though, and as we know, "what is superfluous is hostile to what is essential." So what's essential? My duties consist primarily of making house calls to Louisiana Ron Paul supporters, and informing them about leadership opportunities in their communities. During one of these phone calls, I talked to a man, whose name I confess I can no longer remember, who made the most compelling case against minimum wage laws I've ever heard. I suppose I should preface the next part of this article by stating I was already opposed to minimum wage laws before talking to this man, so I admit some bias, but I truly do believe that, regardless of prior disposition, anyone would be inclined to agree with the man's argument.

I'll be brief. This man is a twenty year veteran trucker who is currently unemployed and on disability relief. He's tried to get work as a trucker, but nobody will take a chance on him because his disabilities make him incapable of unloading the truck himself. Understandable, right? But here's the problem: the man offered to work for less, because he understands the value of his work isn't worth the value the company pays normal truckers. He could compensate, by providing his services at a lower price. The truck company would LOVE this, but governmental laws prevent the company from paying the man anything less than minimum wage. The company literally can't hire him, even though he WANTS to work for a lower wage. Now, instead of having a job, the man is being supported on a check, paid for by taxpayers. Do I even need to comment on how sick this is? The man wants to work, but the law won't allow him to, because the government seems to think it knows best what somebody deserves for their work. Let's take quick look at the philosophical implications of this mindset. Essentially, what minimum wage laws do, is imply that money has value separate from the person who created it. The laws say money has value, but forgets the main question: of value to whom? The laws reduce humans to a common denominator and imply that one man's work is, by virtue of nothing, worth just as much as another man's work. The man who is disabled is worth just as much as the man who is not, under the logic of the laws. This is absurd though, as my new friend argued. He understood that his work simply wasn't worth as much as the work of a healthy young man, and he was willing to work for whatever the company deemed proper, just so long as he had a job. Unfortunately, the very laws that are supposed to protect the welfare of the common man, prevented him from finding work. Now, taxpayers like you and I are supporting him. Hmm. Incidentally, there is only one presidential candidate who would work to get rid of minimum wage laws...Ron Paul!


-L.C.

Ron Paul 2012

A Joke on Postmodernism

I didn't make this up, but I found it hilarious.

How many deconstructionists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Even the framing of this question makes a grid of patriarchal assumptions that reveals a slavish devotion to phallocentric ideas – such as, technical accomplishment has inherent value, knowledge can be attained and quantities of labor can be determined empirically, all of which makes a discourse which further marginalizes the already disenfranchised.

On the Occupiers at UC Davis: A Dialogue

I recently saw a video of some protesters at the University of California Davis blocking off a public sidewalk. They refused to move, and were subsequently pepper sprayed. A friend of mine was outraged, and posted a Facebook status, stating:

"It sickens me to see the police force do this. Anyone else have any opinions on this?"

Here is the link to video: 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ePH-1B2-gc

I gave him my opinion (This is unedited, and taken directly from Facebook comments. I have the names of the participators. Note the grammar of the individual debaters...)

Lain: Civil disobedience can be justifiable at times, but nobody has the right to do it at the expense of others. The protesters have no right to forcibly (through refusal to move) occupy public or private property. They were blocking public side...walks, and they deserved to be sprayed. There's a difference between freedom to speak and freedom to act; they aren't a package-deal. They took an anti-conceptual approach, and chose their bodies, rather than their minds. They chose to sit and complain, rather than stand and exchange ideas as rational humans. The whole hypocrisy of the thing lies in the fact that they want "rights" but are willing to violate the rights of others by blocking public property.

Darius: Even though you justify what the protestors did as wrong. What the cops did isn't any better. They call america a democracy, but that's not what it is. 

Lain: No, it's a Republic. Democracy would never work because of irrational morons like those protesters. Why, if you could elaborate, was it wrong? Sure, reason ends where force begins, but who truly initiated force first? The occupiers, by bloc...king the sidewalk and refusing to move. That is a form of force, and the police actions were taken in order to mediate that. What else should be done? They obviously aren't intelligent enough to present an intelligent argument, or they would be doing just that, instead of sitting around and rabbling "Shame on you!" As if that is how intelligent people get things done...

Darius: I'm not looking at it in a political view. Honestly, I could care less about politics. And maybe you do have a point, but don't you think they could've went straight to the hancuffing rather than poising their lungs with that crap?

Cato: What else were they supposed to do? They have no right to block public property.

Darius: They could have just went straight to handcuffing. And aren't they considered the public? 

Lain: It's not a political view, you made it that by referring to a "democracy." It's a moral issue. Should the police try and handcuff an angry mob? Think about how that would work out? No, the police tried to peacefully get them to move, but they showed aggressive defiance; the police did their job. And, there is no such entity as "the public;" It's merely a collection of individuals, with individual rights. There are no "collective rights." Individual rights were violated by their occupations. 

Darius: They went to handcuffing and arrest anyway. But okaay.. Maybe you have a point. Im not gunna put down your opinion. as you can see its mad some people upset on both sides. So either way there's no justice on both parts(towards the officers and/or towards the protestors). 

Cato: They were purposely blocking the police. The police would never have arrested anyone for simply "peacefully protesting," however the students did not allow the police to move through. That was a public roadway they hindered. There was no other way the police could have possibly handled that peacefully.


Darius: There are plenty of other ways. 

Lain: Name one.

Cato: Name one. 

Darius: Woah^^
I already have.. THEY COULD HAVE WENT TO ARRESSTING RIGHT AWAY. they did it anyway.
What if they lost their vision or it tampered with their lungs as there was permanent damage? Are you saying that wouldn't matter? 

Xerxes:  IT WAS THE QUAD IN THE UC DAVID EAST CAMPUS. Not a public roadway.... 

Lain: They won't have permanent damage. That's an outrageous claim. The mob was acting aggressive. Should a few police officers contend with the what, fifty angry protesters, who have not only demonstrated an unwillingness to follow the law, but have also shown increasing aggression at each attempt to move them? It's a danger to the officers.


Lain: It's a public school, i.e, public property.

Xerxes: It was the quad in the UC David campus. Not a public roadway.... People sit there everyday. 

Lain: Clear evasion of the argument. Never forget words have an exact meaning: "Public." They are blocking public property. Don't get into linguistics with me. It's absurd to debate whether it's a "roadway" or a "quad;" It is still public property. 

Cato: This debate is just ridiculous. Everyone believes that the right party is the one who suffers when they don't consider that maybe the "victimized" party was the one who broke the law in the first place. Once again the police would never demonstrate violence or attempts at arrest if the protesters were truly "peaceful" however it couldn't be any clearer that the protesters were blocking public property. All they had to do was move and nobody would have been hurt. The students were completely wrong and there's no way handcuffing a huge angry mob was ever gonna do the trick

Darius: okay.. Sorry for stating what I believed to be right. But you never know.. What if the protestors had asthma or something. Who are you to say that's an outrageous claim? And you kept saying they were on public property. Are they not the public? Are they not citizens? All I'm saying is that the freaking pepper spray was completely uncalled for. I'm not going into the law I'm not going into political factors. 

Lain: It's not the responsibility of the police to know whether or not the person has asthma...As far as the "public," clearly my last argument didn't resonate with you. My apologies. Let me quote someone much more intelligent than me. The public "is an undefined and undefinable concept; there is no such entity as "the public"; the public or society is only a number of individuals." Essentially, you are arguing that "that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals." (Ayn Rand)

Xerxes: The protest was as peaceful as possible it was 20 kids sitting down. They weren't yelling or throwing anything. It was a sit down on an area on campus where people sit everyday. The area is public property and those students pay nearly 20k a year in fees to that school. They have the right to have a peaceful sit in. The pepper spray was over the top and not necessary. 

Lain: No rights may be gained by the violation of the rights of others.


Darius: They were standing up for what they believed was right, they didn't want raised tuition prices. THATS ALL. Give me proof stating students ATTENDING THIS SCHOOL are not allowed to sit in the quad. By saying CITIZENS are not allowed to sit in... public areas is just dehuminizing. Your definition of public is far different from the literal meaning. It's they're school. They sit in the quad everyday. Do you not believe in natural rights? WHAT RIGHTS OF OTHERS. the only ones complaining were the cops. I'm pretty sure no one else going to public schools would like the prices
To be raised. 

Cato: Stop changing the argument. They blocked a police vehicle. All they had to do was move and everything would have ended well. Of course you're allowed to sit in a public area. You certainly aren't allowed to block it though. The transgression falls upon the students for BLOCKING a PUBLIC area. I'm done with this debate.


Darius: THEY DIDN'T BLOCK ANYTHIG. the police went there to remove them. for no reason. I'm not changing the argument. 

Lain: They were sitting down for what they believed was right, without ever justifying why it was "right." Do you know what natural rights are? They rest on the premise that a person has the right to pursue their own happiness, as long as it is not at the expense of others. You are continuously avoiding the argument. Stop evading. Don't throw out cliche terms like "natural rights" and "dehumanizing" without justifying what they mean. Do you not understand that the "public" is an arbitrary concept; it has no grounds.

Darius: Your being rude :(

Lain: Reason hurts. 


I have to cut off the debate here, both because of the length, and because the other side simply began insulting Cato and me. Who do you think was right?

 - L.C.

Schopenhauer's "The Horrors and Absurdities of Religion:" Some Thoughts

I should preface this by writing that I do indeed believe in God; it is religion I reject.
It's always seemed to me inconceivable that one's passage to heaven should depend on the religion one was born into. Isn't faith supposed to be an individual choice? How can it be considered as such if we're indoctrinated into one belief system at a time when our brains aren't fully developed enough to make metaphysical judgments of our own?

Philalethes "...the capacity for faith is at its highest in childhood."

Of course a child will adopt a faith if he or she has it recited to them daily! After the childhood indoctrination,

Philalethes "...hardly one in a thousand (people) will then possess the firmness of mind to seriously and honestly ask himself: is this true."

One could make a child believe anything. Schopenhauer poses the example of teaching a child that it was his or her religious duty to kill others as an "essential condition for salvation." I'm inclined to agree; it's the ultimate incentive. 

Philalethes "The power of religious dogmas imprinted to early years is such that are capable of stifling conscience and finally all pity and humanity."

We need to stop giving our children so quickly to religion. It's an absurd notion that, based on the location of ones birth, one is more likely to enter heaven. One should not be forced to adopt metaphysical views. It stifles the intellect and limits the imagination.

Philalethes "...an incubus on all intellectual endeavours."

This kind of birth based faith is so absurd, and so stifling, that all one of the faith need do to "verify" one's viewpoints is to determine that another viewpoint differs; one never pauses to objectively ask which is right and why. I think I'm making some ground; I realize I'm taking a good amount from Schopenhauer, but I think the fundamental issue with religion is that it teaches one to ask "what" without asking "why." It's separated the essential questions; the dichotomy is absurd! In Schopenhauer's work, Demopheles argues that religion is a way to control the masses; just because it is pragmatical however, doesn't make it right. In regards to its pragmatism, 

Nego consequitiom!

Philalethes "I cannot see why because other people are simple minded, I should respect a pact of lies."

The masses, Demopheles says, are incapable of answering "why," so religious allegory substitutes. The "what" is indeed there, but its justification is counterfeited. Are we incapable of answering "why," through reason though? One only need look at Ancient Greece to show we are not. When no "why" is supplied, humans are forced to use reason to answer it as an essential condition to survival. Religion destroys these inner promptings, however, by artificially creating a "why." Children need to be allowed to find reason and faith largely by themselves; familes and churches should be mere guides in faith, not instructors, especially in the early years. Humans are not innately incapable of answering "why;" religion renders us so. If we recognize the fact that faiths are largely based on where one is born, and not any voluntary choice, we can realize its detrimental effects to the rational center of the brain. Only by eliminating this emphasis on religion can we regain our reason and individually answer the metaphysical questions. Indeed it is time for mankind to

"...grow out of religion as out of its childhood clothes."

-L.C.

Thoughts in AP Calculus

Absurdity of absurdities. My math teacher won't let me make use of the class Academic Tutor because I scored too high on my last test. Never mind it was the tutoring that helped me learn the material last time, not her! She says only the students who failed the test can use the tutor. This is absurd! The students who achieve the highest should have access to the tutors, not the slackers who can't even score a C. My math teacher and all public school teachers for that matter, can forgive everything but greatness; they've made mediocrity the standard for special privilege. It's disgusting. I feel like Sisyphus.

The Anti-Conceptual Wall Street Occupiers

I've recently seen a number of interviews featuring members of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and I was struck by a common theme that appeared in all of the interviewees: an anti-conceptual philosophy.  Definitions, to them, are arbitrary constructs that have no bearing on reality. How could they have bearing, when they implicitly state that reality is unknowable? Let me provide an example of this: One of the interviewees, a woman, demanded she be refereed to as a "female bodied person." She found the term "female" offensive because she thought that not all "female bodied people," identify as "females." Essentially, she is stating, (I say state, not argue, because one can't rationally argue such an absurd position) that a judgment, or a definition, has no real bearing on reality, and that it cannot be separated from the person making the judgment. Concepts don't exist, in her way of thinking; A is only A because we say it is. A female is only a female because we've said so, and a female can be something different if "she" chooses.

By this "logic," 2+2 only equals 4 because we say so. Somebody could be equally justified in saying it equals 5. The occupiers deny the facts of reality, saying that there are no absolutes, no facts, just opinions. The contradiction in this is blatant; one can't absolutely argue there are no absolutes. By arguing against concepts, they're subconsciously trying to form one, only, it can never hold. One need only look at science to see that men and women are genetically different. This is not to say that one is better than the other (it's sad I need to include that to shield myself from the women's libs), they're just different, and that's good! Nature intended it to be that way! These occupiers seem to think that feeling trumps reality; that one can feel something and it can be true based on feeling alone. This is absurd and disgusting. A human being is only different from an animal because he or she can concretize the facts of reality into concepts. The occupiers wish to exist on the sensational and perceptual level, claiming that feeling is truth, and perceptions are arbitrary from person to person. I'll elaborate more on this later.

-L.C.

The Hypocrisy of Republicans and Democrats Alike in Modern Society

I don't have much time, and I'll elaborate on this more thoroughly later, but I need to get something out. I've been watching political debates recently, and the hypocrisies of both parties are making me sick. I suppose I should say right now, I'm a Libertarian Republican, but that doesn't stop me from attacking Republicans just as much as I do Democrats. I'll be brief:

The stance of modern Republicans: Let's have a capitalistic system because we're individualists! At the same time, lets make drugs illegal, ban gay marriage, allow religion in government, and listen to our citizens private phone calls without a warrent.

The stance of modern Democrats: Let's allow gay marriage because we want individualism. We want a secular society so everyone can be an individual. Let's have a regulated economy! Let's force people to buy insurance! Let's tax people more!

It makes me sad I even need to point out the ideological inconsistencies. We have Republicans supporting an individualist economic theory, but denying the individualist social theory, and we have Democrats supporting social individualism, but denying the means of achieving it, ie, free market capitalism.

One can't compromise with freedom! You either have it, or you don't. Capitalism is the corollary to an individualist social theory. We've created an artificial dichotomy and we wonder why there are so many problems today? The government needs to stop interfering with both. Both sides of the political spectrum say that the other side "supports big government," but in reality, both do; they just mask it in different ways. Let me provide a simple solution.

If one is to advocate free market Capitalism, one must realize that is foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights one must recognize that Capitalism is the only system that can do this.

-L.C.

Consciousness and the Will to Act

It's interesting; I almost stopped myself from writing this, and it was only once I re-read the title I had given it that I decided to continue. It's so easy to set a goal and not follow through with it; one needs simply to rationalize an excuse not to do it. "I'll do it later." "I don't feel well." "I'm tired." "I'm busy." "I'm too depressed." Bah. My excuse lately has been depression mixed with anger. I won't elaborate much on the specifics of it, that's not the point. Rather, my point is that our mind, the source of all of these goals and ideas, prevents us at the same time from accomplishing them. I've allowed myself to wallow in thought so much that lately, I haven't been doing anything worthwhile; I haven't been doing anything at all actually. Consciousness can be a disease, they say, and I've been afflicted more than my fair share of it. I feel like Dostoevsky's Underground Man"

"Oh, gentlemen, do you know, perhaps I consider myself an intelligent man, only because all my life I have been able neither to begin nor to finish anything"

Naturally this hasn't been going on my entire life, but recently, I've been trapped by inertia. It's so easy to wallow in self pity and to analyze every possible scenario; it's even easier to choose the negative outcome as your solution to that scenario. I'm not entirely sure why yet, because it seems that it would feel better to expect the best, yet, it seems humans always choose the worst. My answer to this, though cynical, is that humans like suffering. Well, we don't LIKE it, but we enjoy to talk of it. Suffering gives us a claim to uniqueness. Humans are actually proud of their suffering, because it gives them something to have "overcome." This is absurd but this is the way we live. How often do I hear my peers explain some awful tragedy that has just occurred in their lives? How often do I see Facebook status's from people hoping to get pity? It's absurd, but suffering is so much more fun to talk about then happiness. Happiness is boring (to most people). 

"Ha, ha, ha! You will be finding enjoyment in toothache next," you cry, with a laugh."

I'm digressing slightly, but only to explain better my situation. I chose to suffer, and to live in fear of finding certainty. I chose, rather than to act, to live in pain, because it gave me some claim to hold on to. I was a victim! It's sick really. I went as far to create negative fictions about my situation, to use as an excuse to hold on to the suffering. I would literally come home from school, and do nothing but think. I would think up the most horrible possibilities ever, knowing it hurt me, but never once choosing to act in order to become certain. I was fearful of the outcome of conscious action. The mind can make a coward of us all if we let it; I think Hamlet said that. I put thoughts and actions onto other people, and worried myself into inactivity. My will to act was gone because I willingly let it go and exchanged it with the will to suffer. It's awful and naive, but I feel I'm not the only one who has done this. During the last week, I neglected my homework, my eating, my sleep, my manners; I neglected myself. I didn't take active initiative to do this, but rather, it was my lack of action that brought this about. I knew I was being hurt, but I continued on the path because my mind had created an uncertainty that prevented me from doing something; I wasn't sure what would happen if I took action. At least I knew that if I didn't I would suffer. Suffering was an absolute, and I think that's the key. People are always looking for certainty; they'll choose it over uncertainty 9 out of 10 times, even it it means suffering. Inertia dictated I didn't take action, so I didn't.

"…tearing and consuming myself till at last the bitterness turned into a sort of shameful accursed sweetness, and at last – into positive real enjoyment! Yes, into enjoyment, into enjoyment! I insist upon that. I have spoken of this because I keep wanting to know for a fact whether other people feel such enjoyment? I will explain; the enjoyment was just from the too intense consciousness of one's own degradation; it was from feeling oneself that one had reached the last barrier, that it was horrible, but that it could not be otherwise; that there was no escape for you; that you never could become a different man; that even if time and faith were still left you to change into something different you would most likely not wish to change; or if you did wish to, even then you would do nothing; because perhaps in reality there was nothing for you to change into."

My grandpa came over to the house today, and he told me something I'll never forget: "Either shit, or get off the pot." He was right. I thought over-analyzing my situation, and suffering from it, would somehow, in the end, make things better. Really, it's activity, any activity, that fixes suffering. We're in charge of our mind, and we choose what thoughts enter it. I can let the negativity enter, and prevent me from taking action; it's certainly easy, but that will never bring anything good about. It's the will to act that can fix depression, and that comes from controlling one's mind. It's late and I realize this may not be my best work, but if we can grasp anything from this, let is understand that action cures consciousness.

 -L.C.

Thus Spoke Artsuhtaraz? Chapter 1

I started this a while back; It's essentially my own personal take of Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche, but during my Freshman year. I hope one can see that Artsuhtaraz is Zarathustra spelled backwards... I'll be posting more parts later.

Chapter 1

When Artsuhtaraz was 15 years old, he left his junior high school and advanced into the 9th grade. He was a year older than most of his peers, a product of his parent’s insistence on placing him in school a year later, and by intellectual standards, far ahead. The previous two years had been times of despair. Metaphorically and existentially, he had been lost. It was on this warm summer morning in August, his first day of school that Artsuhtaraz gazed upon the sun and spoke thus unto it: “For two years you have failed to shine on me. For two years I have lived an endless night. For two years, I have been cursed. I now understand, oh sphere of light, that it was not your fault. You rise and set as surely as the Earth circumvents your rays, and you hold no prejudices against those of us who depend on your warmth. It was my fault. The dark veil I had caste around myself prevented your light from penetrating my soul. Alas, I have thrown off that veil. Nevermore will it block your healing waves. I am yours, forevermore.” And so Artsuhtaraz was driven to school by his brother, and thus began Artsuhtaraz’s new life.

Artsuhtaraz arrived at school on time and proceeded to the administration office to pick up his schedules. He saw a group of his friends in line, and, being waved to by a particular friend, Robert (robby), he pushed through the crowd to join them. He felt an overwhelming sense of optimism, not even the presence of, Patty, the girl who rejected him, could dampen his spirits. He knew he would have her one day, because the sun shineth on him now more than all the others. “Hello” said Patty. Artsuhtaraz glanced at her, or rather, glanced straight through her as if not even seeing her, then turned and spoke thus unto Robert. “What classes did you sign up for?” Patty, dismayed, left to join another group of students. Robert quickly listed off his classes, then commented “You totally ignored her, she’s pissed.” “I’ve turned a new leaf my friend,” spoke Artsuhtaraz, “If I ignore her, she’ll come to me.” “Good plan,” replied Robert. Artsuhtaraz got his schedule, and after a quick comparison with Robert and some other friends, realized he had not one single class with someone he knew. Dismayed, Artsuhtaraz walked to his geometry class.

His teacher, Mr. M, was also the quarterback coach of Artsuhtaraz’s football team. Mr. M had never played football though, and Artsuhtaraz found it strange he would be hired to coach the most important position, in Artsuhtaraz’s opinion, on the team. Artsuhtaraz was the quarterback. Mr. M gave Artsuhtaraz a look that portrayed him as having far more intelligence than he actually did, and in smartass fashion, told him how glad he was to have him in the class. Artsuhtaraz shrugged and took his seat. Mr. M told a few jokes which elicited some awkward half laughs, then told the class to take out a piece of paper to take notes. Mr. M then picked up a geometry book and proceeded to lecture, telling the students to take down what he said and wrote on the board. Artsuhtaraz enthusiastically copied down every word that pasty man said, and then took out his geometry book to do some supplemental problems. Opening up to the chapter, his eyes caught the first introductory paragraph. He then glanced at his notes. They were identical. Artsuhtaraz raised his hand and spoke “Mr. M, excuse me, but aren’t these notes verbatim from the book?” “What are you talking about?” Mr. M answered with snobbish prose. “Well, that last sentence you wrote down is exactly from our book.” Mr. M turned a shade of bright red, and told Artsuhtaraz to meet him outside. “What did I do wrong Mr. M?” spoke Artsuhtaraz. “I’m the teacher, I know best. If I want to teach my lesson from the book, then I will, and I won’t listen to some 15 year old child tell me how to do it!” Taken aback, Artsuhtaraz spoke again, “but Mr. M, why come to class if we can find the same material in the book?” Mr. M sneered, his bald head perspiring. “You’ll be running laps today after school, now sit outside until class is over.” Sadly, Artsuhtaraz sat down at an empty desk in the hallway, and began reading a textbook on microbiology. The rest of the day continued much the same. Artsuhtaraz learned Richard Wright was black, he learned in Spanish class that the students suspected the teacher of filming a porno, and in psychology he learned that his teacher had once ridden a motorcycle barefoot, and that House was in its third season. Artsuhtaraz arrived at football dumbed down and tired. It wasn’t long before Mr. M made Artsuhtaraz run laps, watching constantly as if he got a sick pleasure from it. But as soon as he realized Artsuhtaraz wouldn’t tire very easily, he gave up and found another player to pick on. Artsuhtaraz excelled in practice, out-throwing and outrunning the backup quarterbacks. At the end of the day, Mr. M came over to him and said “poor day of practice Artsuhtaraz. Keep that up and we’ll replace you.” Artsuhtaraz shrugged and walked away.

-L.C.

A shot a friend took of me while in Oxford.

 

I'm not normally one to pose, and I wasn't aware he was taking the photo, but it turned out pretty awesome in my (conceited) opinion. 

-L.C.

Helping my peers edit their college essays?

I wasn't aware I was the authority on the subject. Believe me, I think myself a mediocre writer at best, yet they're lining up to hear my opinion. If only I could just say no.....

My friend was asked in one of his prompts to describe an activity he does for pleasure alone; he only has 100 words so it needed to be brief. I thought we'd take a creative approach.

"I await the serve, crouched in a stance that would make Federer wet himself. Pink Floyd plays a calming frequency. The bass on my speakers deepens, bumping the garage, and creating the perfect soundtrack for what is to come. My opponent waits for that psychological moment that occurs when the song reaches crescendo. Suddenly, “ping!” The ball hits the table…”pong!” I redirect his serve over the net. My math mind takes over. “Decrease the angle! Hit it harder, Noam! Not that hard!” For 21 points, I’m in heaven. Then it’s over, until I realize it’s best two out of three."

-L.C.

Philosophy: Who Needs It? A book by Ayn Rand

This is a VERY brief overview of it's impact on my life. I'm far too tired to write more tonight.

Saying that Philosophy: Who Needs It, by Ayn Rand, “surprised, unsettled, or challenged” me would be an understatement. The book could best be described as the marijuana to my cocaine, my gateway into a realm of heightened senses, though in this case, of heightened intellect. There are few experiences in life which we can cite as “changing the way we think,” but reading the collection of essays did just that. It taught me to approach life the way I would a maze: by analyzing every possible angle to determine the proper course of action. It showed me a fundamental error with the way we’re taught to think in high school: to analyze consequences, not causes. When we do this, we assert that the universe is some unknowable realm of inexplicable occurrences that our mind is incapable of grasping. Rand’s book taught me that nothing is a given. We can’t accept something as “inexplicable,” because in doing so, we abnegate our means of survival, our rationality. Man’s happiness, man’s peace, man’s success, even man’s survival, these things must be learned and discovered by the individual. Only by consciously developing as Rand says, an “integrated view of existence,” a life philosophy, can we do this. Rand’s book set me on the path to defining my own philosophical system; I’m not entirely there yet, but things certainly make a lot more sense. Go buy the book; It will change your life.

-L.C.

Ego and Judgement--Some brief ramblings

 How does it feel to be called a name that isn't representative of who you are? How do you deal with people that judge you? 

I was recently asked this question and I thought I should copy my response to the answer of another person.
"It hurts a lot. Especially when it comes from people who you thought were your friends. When you hear other people tell you, "oh yeah they hate you," you want to shrivel up inside. You feel betrayed, lied to, and heartbroken. Ill be nice to them, but I keep a distance, and stay close to the friends that I know know me for who I am, and not for who I am by the creation of others." - Anonymous
I think our anonymous friend misunderstood the question. "How does it feel to be called a name that ISN'T representative of who you are?" Obviously the key word is "isn't." The very fact that the judgment isn't representative of you sets its value to a zero. It has no worth. No merit. No meaning. There is no reason to be offended because it is untrue. "It's absolutely meaningless. To care what others falsely think is abnegation of the self. It makes your values completely subjective to the whims of others. To be offended shows that you believe you have no right to live for your own sake, and that your only standards are the ones created and placed by others---That you have no sense of self worth." -DM You can't set your Ego based on the approval of others. Ego stems from I. It stems from the value you place on yourself. Your Ego is independent from the thoughts and Egos of others.  Author Carlos Ruiz Zafon once wrote that "there are worse prisons than words."The words of others, if false, should be disregarded completely. They are meaningless. The worst prison is the one you trap yourself in by allowing others to alter your values. False words do not devalue your ethics. They don't devalue your "self." A healthy Ego is one that cannot be touched by others.

This is not to say however, that true judgments should be ignored. If you're offended, analyze whether the judgment is true or false. If false, disregard it. It has no effect on your Ego. Only you can build that through the achievement of your values. If the judgment is true, do not take offense at the one passing judgment, but rather, take offense with yourself. Do not deny the facts of reality. Wishing the judgment away will not make the characteristics you were judged upon disappear. Only you, your Ego, can do that. If the judgment is true and offensive, you obviously must possess a characteristic that you don't value. Analyze yourself and change that characteristic to match your values.


-L.C.

Spontaneity

Have you ever been driving down the freeway and wondered what it would be like to climb that "mountain in the distance?" I've done that. It only took four hours scaling cliffs, hacking through poison oak, and stealing a boat to get back. Dare to be spontaneous. Don't wait for life to pass you by while you plan out every little step. If you want to climb the mountain, climb it, don't wait for someone to make a trail.

- L. C.

Prometheus

Prometheus

Sing me in the glen,

A tale of great schism,

Of Men, of Women,

Who accepted no “ism.”

Of the One with the hemlock cup,

Not a value he would sacrifice;

Of the Man who refused to sup,

No enslavement would suffice

The Woman who inspired a nation,

And ended a century war;

A Man of great cultivation,

Was betrayed by a fiddler for;

These People of great Soul,

The ones who gave fire;

Died for a goal,

Because a man was a liar.

But they won long ago,

Those of self sincerity;

Whose noble footsteps echo,

In the halls of eternity.

- L.C.

What Matters Most?

What matters most? This question sent me into a period of introspection that can best be described as the inner ramblings of a madman. It’s so simple a question, yet it’s so hard to do its answer justice because we live in a society that “answers” it for us. I think a short story might best illustrate this. Imagine a teenager, let’s call him Dan. Dan is applying to college.  He’s trying to answer a prompt that has plagued students for years. “What matters most?” Dan’s stumped. He’s never before been asked this question in such broad terms. He starts to think. Nothing. He thinks really hard. “What does everyone else say is important?” They, he decides, will tell him what matters. “Who am I to decide? It’s much bigger than I.” Dan writes his paper. The conclusion of this story isn’t that he got accepted, but rather, it’s that twenty years later, Dan is confronted with the question again. This time, he’s voting for the next U.S. president. He had always been a member of his political party, without really understanding why. “My parents were,” he supposes. He votes for his party member. “What matters to him matters to me.” His vote helps secure a victory. Within a year, martial law is declared, and U.S. democracy is effectively dissolved.

This is an extreme example, but often, examples like this are the best way to illustrate a point. Dan never realized that what matters is the ability to individually decide what matters. He left his responsibility to determine personal values up to “society,” failing to realize that nobody could pinch hit for his reason. Ironically, the society that taught Dan “what matters,” paid the price. When we can’t define objective values, we leave ourselves open to a whimsical interpretation of value based on whatever we are “supposed” to believe. These values can never be upheld, because they’ve never been rationally justified. Around the world the results can be seen: Religious radicals who claim that killing is evil, yet are willing to take a life should someone disagree with them; Politicians who preach family value, yet cheat on their spouses; Rioters who demand "equality," but who are willing to violate the rights of others by burning private property, or, in Dan’s case, a vote for a president that would one day destroy freedom. It would be simple to believe in the virtue of honesty just because society tells me it’s good, but I would be doing what Dan did: accepting society’s standard as a given. It is not a given, and because I considered the alternatives, I can value honesty for what it truly means. By the end of my struggle, I’d come up with this conclusion: in the world today, we’re so tightly handcuffed by tradition that we’ve forgotten the thought process that defined it; as rational humans, we can’t let this happen. We need to remember that it is our ability to create our own values that matters most.

 - L.C.