As with most objectivists of his ilk, the crucial point I am trying to raise has little to do with whatever particular behaviors Satyr deems to be moral or immoral, noble or ignoble. Rather it is the manner in which he insists that only the manner in which he insists on differentiating the ubermen from the sheep, reflects the manner in which you are either one of Us or one of Them.
Really, how different is Satyr’s spiel from Ayn Rands? You are either at one with her [him] or you are at one with the collectivists [the retards].
From my perspective [and that’s all it is], moral and political objectivism is more likely to be a psychological agenda than a philosophical one.
And the reality of success will revolve more or less around “might makes right” or around “moderation, negotiation and compromise”.
But this would seem to be so only in recognizing that, in the absense of God, mere mortals have no other recourse. Sans God, how do mere mortals arrive at an actual deontological agenda such that it can be demonstrated that all rational men and women must behave in one way rather than another? Even Nietzsche’s ubermen recognized the inherent ambiguities embedded in a Godless universe.
They can either take what they want and rationalize it in terms of a world where the strong prevail over the weak, or they can try to justify what they do by constructing an intellectual contraption like Satyr’s. In other words, he feels compelled to justify his behaviors as more than just the brute facticity of might makes right. Instead, what he rationalizes must be seen as the noble and virtuous thing to do. Only he hardly ever brings this down to earth such that the discussion revolves around actual conflicting human behaviors that we are all familiar with. Instead, it’s always ascribed in the lofty [and didactic] rhetoric of The Intellectual.
Or, being less kind, The Pedant.
Sure. One or another social, political and economic consensus rooted in one or another historical and cultural and experiential context. But from my frame of mind this all goes back to dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.