One of the most interesting political philosophies, in my opinion, is objectivism. I'll elaborate on this interest more later on, after I explain the basic tenets. Objectivism originated in the works of Ayn Rand, a very controversial political philosopher whose popularity has grown tremendously in recent years. Rand advocated complete individual freedom and a society in which government's only purpose was to enforce contacts. There would be no regulation of speech or individual actions unless they caused implicit and immediate harm to other individuals. No regulations or restrictions would be placed on business practices, as it was assumed that unbridled competition was the only way to fully create the best possible products at the lowest possible cost. Morally, objectivism advocates selfishness; one should never do anything unless they benefit from the action in some way. This belief especially brought about public distaste for objectivism because of its fundamental opposition to altruism and charity. It also didn't help that Ayn Rand herself was such an unlikable figure, which contributed to the backlash against objectivism during her life.
Now on to what I find so interesting about this philosophy. Objectivism is such a straightforward, blunt political and moral philosophy that this nature alone increases my interest in it (and when I say interest, I mean academic interest, not actual adherence or belief in its ideals). There is also something refreshing about a belief-system adhering to the principle of "do whatever you want, but you will deal with the consequences of your actions." However, I think the greatest force of attraction to me concerns the sheer level of creativity and difference this would bring to society, by which I mean, a social, political, and economic structure that has never been seen before in the industrialized world (does that mean I think it should be implemented? No, but it can yield some interesting hypotheticals).
Some of the greatest creativity regarding objectivism can be found in fiction, creating interesting worlds and societies that keep readers, viewers, players and whatever engaged. I'm not referring to what is considered Rand's masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged (honestly, it's not great). My primary reference with regard to this is the video game Bioshock. In this series, players find themselves in an underwater metropolis run on the tenets of objectivism, and it honestly does provide a very nuanced look at the philosophy. The lack of regulation encouraged widespread scientific and industrial innovation, but the people themselves became selfish, greedy, and manipulative. I contribute much of the awe generated by this city because of this belief system. So honestly, I find my greatest appreciation of objectivism can be traced to the fictitious worlds it creates for us to explore and examine human nature in. Game developers thought it was interesting enough to form the backdrop of a major video game, and I hope Bioshock's success encourages additional pieces of fiction based on political philosophies (I know, I'm a nerd.).
People seemed to like this the last time I did it, so here's another free-association post.
What's the deal with airline food? What's up with that? Get it..."up" with that. 'Cause an it's food on a plane, and planes fly. Hahahahaha. Oh God, puns suck. What other form of humor can make people groan in pain? The in pain part's the crucial part, because people groan at horrendously offensive jokes, but that's more out of a "I can't believe that white guy in his late twenties just said that" (because more often than not, the comedians who tell those jokes are white guys in their late twenties [Daniel Tosh, Anthony Jeselnik]). Unless they're British, in which case they're usually a little older, but they go even further, yet still display more class than anybody else.
Seriously, how funny are British people? They are just so sarcastic, and it's so awesome. I can definitely tell I'm English; I have such a dry sense of humor. Is there such a thing as a wet sense of humor? Why is being sarcastic considered dry? Backtracking, not a wet sense of humor; moist sense of humor. Even better. And that would be jokes that make people extremely uncomfortable while everybody else can laugh at their discomfort.
I had a thought earlier this week: what if instead of casting Jon Hamm as Don Draper, it was Christopher Walken? I feel like he makes everything more entertaining, and if he was giving those semi-existentialist pitches, that would be so funny. As long as one of them was for a watch. A gold watch. What if Christopher Walken was also cast Walter White?
SUPPRESSING FIRE!!!!!!!!!!
The more people get to know me, the more they realize that references to just about anything form the bulk of what I say. It's always hilarious when the reference is really obscure so nobody knows about it and when the reference is really really weird. Danger zone!
I was recently asked about some of my favorite movies, and as I was listing them, I had a realization; none of them had a happy ending. The more I thought about it, none of my all-time favorite stories, whether they be told through movies, television, books, anything, had a truly happy ending. I've thought about why that is, why I seem to have an aversion to having everything wrap up nicely, where everyone gets what they want and go on enjoying life, and I think I've decided: happy endings are unrealistic. They simply do not happen in real life the way they are commonly portrayed.
My time on this Earth, and my study of the past have confirmed, and reaffirmed one crucial principle: life is not fair. People rarely get what they truly want. And one of my personal favorite sayings (just because it's so fun to say and watch people's reactions); life sucks then you die (I'll address this one later). A lot of this comes from the grand ambitions and plans people create for themselves, for their futures. And that's good. People should strive for the impossible/improbable; it provides a sense of direction, of motivation to push on through unpleasant stuff because it's just a stepping stone on the way to something great. These goals can help us find things we love, things we never thought we'd enjoy. And there's always the chance that we'll succeed, that we actually will get what we want.
But probably not. As I look at some of the goals I've had (or have), the things I've wanted (or want), the more I'm filled with the thought; "If this works out, that would be awesome. But don't get your hopes up. Still try, still give it your all, but don't be surprised if it doesn't go anywhere."
In the face of all this gloom, does that mean that "life sucks then you die?" No. There is so much to enjoy out of life. It just comes from the little things, the things we don't plan for, or expect. Things like a good meal, a fun night with friends, all that crap. It's great. It makes the rest of life worth living. My biggest wish is that I could appreciate these little moments more; despite the longshot goals I have, I still hold on to them and focus on them and keep trying to achieve them. I think there's a balance between appreciating life and trying to make it your own, if that makes sense, and I think I'm moving closer to it. I guess a better, modified saying then, would be "life sucks, except when it doesn't, and then you die."
Happy, uplifting post, am I right? (The correct answer is no).
As I look back at my previous posts, the one thing that stands out about them is that they all were written under varying degrees of free association; I had a topic, and for the most part wrote out my actual thoughts/thought-process in relation to the aspect of the topic I was addressing. I find this process enjoyable, and that it usually yields entertaining results, so I figured that I would start out without a topic in mind and just write what comes to mind for a page or so. I figure this will either be amazingly awesome, or it will be a painful exercise that will never be attempted again. So for science, onward and upward (what?).
If you think about it, all of the great projects were started with the mindset of "this will be legen-wait-for-it-dary", or "this is going to backfire horribly, somebody will die, and we'll be tried in the Hague." Why is the Hague called "The Hague?" It's just a city, like anywhere else, so why does it get a "the?" Why isn't it simply "Hague?" Those rebellious Dutch, that play by their own rules (or at least I think it's the Dutch. It might be in Belgium, but I'm pretty sure it's in the Netherlands. Even the country name does that too; might explain it.). If you look at the last two periods with the parenthesi in between, it kind of looks like a nose. That could be a fun game actually: what does this random collection of keyboards syllables look like to you? Actually no, that sounds awful, and anyone who attempts to make other people play that should definitely get dragged in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity by means of incredibly boring, poorly conceived and/or thought-out "games" (could you even call that a game?)
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. (Such a good movie. The minute I found out I was going to start a blog, I said to myself "at some point, you're going to make this reference, and hopefully people will get it).
Well, I've taken up about a page talking about nothing. I know: I'll just make this the Seinfeld blog, a blog about nothing. Would honestly probably be amusing. I'm kidding of course, there are lots of things to talk about. I hope you at least got a laugh out of this post, and have become aware of some of the great unanswered questions in life.
