Evolution or Revolution
An on-going argument among Objectivists is whether change should be allowed to happen by evolution - or whether revolution is not only required, but is the only moral alternative.
I believe in evolution. To be trite, you move mountains one pebble at a time. As I look at the changes in politics, philosophy, and economics, just in my lifetime, I see thousands of examples of incremental changes that over time became a monumental change in the manner in which we think and act.
When younger, existentialism was the belief most prevelant among the college set. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism - which said reality was knowable and that A is A changed that belief and now her views are commonly accepted.
I raise this point because we are in an election year and not one of the candidates perfectly fits my beliefs. Yet, I am actively and strongly supporting one - one who comes the closest - even though he is not perfect.
Perhaps we did need revolutions from time to time - in the founding of our country, during the civil war, and even the civil rights movement - but this strategy should be employed when all attempts at persuasion and small changes growing into big ones have failed.
What are your views?
I believe in evolution. To be trite, you move mountains one pebble at a time. As I look at the changes in politics, philosophy, and economics, just in my lifetime, I see thousands of examples of incremental changes that over time became a monumental change in the manner in which we think and act.
When younger, existentialism was the belief most prevelant among the college set. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism - which said reality was knowable and that A is A changed that belief and now her views are commonly accepted.
I raise this point because we are in an election year and not one of the candidates perfectly fits my beliefs. Yet, I am actively and strongly supporting one - one who comes the closest - even though he is not perfect.
Perhaps we did need revolutions from time to time - in the founding of our country, during the civil war, and even the civil rights movement - but this strategy should be employed when all attempts at persuasion and small changes growing into big ones have failed.
What are your views?
Labels: Ayn Rand, economics, elections, evolution, Objectivism, philosophy, politics, revolution
posted by ArLyne Diamond, Ph.D. @ 10:44 PM
3 Comments:
At 3:25 PM,
Anonymous said…
Revolution is the only way to effect true change. All else, as Marcuse said is co-option by those in power, without relinguishing power. Our country is headed down a very dangerous path, and we have to rise up against the mailaise that is our government and elect people who will listen to the will of their constituents; be willing to change if proven wrong; capable of garnering the respect of the rest of the world (all of it), and realize that killing and bloodshed never accomplished anything good. As for presidential candidates, I think that Dennis Kucenich has the best views and that John Edwards has the best chance of being an effective president. Hilary is too hawkish despite the fact that America has to join the modern world and elect a woman as our leader. Barak Obama is appealing, but not fully realized. On the Republican side, there is no one that I would wish upon this country.
So there,
Steve Chase
At 10:30 PM,
ArLyne Diamond, Ph.D. said…
Steve, so wonderful to hear from you - I actually just referred someone to you recently.
Well, how interesting that you are a hawk about revolution and a dove about our country and war.
What wonderful contradictions - only in America.......
At 8:45 PM,
philippine outsourcing said…
That was really interesting idea. You somehow opened my mind about this. Thanks for the inspiration.
Post a Comment
<< Home