It's one o'clock

Probably the most typical Kyrgyz secen in Bishkek bread. It is truly the best around and cheap. The staple of the common diet and something I miss very much.
having tea, dinner and in the evening chess, music, or a walk to the pub, or maybe just a walk down town.Or CRAPPY but cool Kyrgyz tele. Just some of the things I miss about Bishkek. Those women in the pic? (even though I am not the author of the photo) , I have seen before either at Osh Bazaar, or in Vostok Pyat.
I also miss Kyrgyz Beer!

Afternoon

So to understand what the objectivist view on morality is let us examine the god of 'objectivity' Rand herself. : "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues… — Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged."
the link I drew this ....remark from can be found here , So let us analyze this point by point:
1) "Man must hold three things as ruling values: reason-purpose-selfesteem." Under these 'values', people like Usama Bin Laden are not guilty of anything at all. Nor was Hitler, or Stalin, or anyone. Infact every person in prison for any range of crimes should be understood that they are seeking their own understanding under Rands defenition of morality.
2) "These three 'values' imply and require all of man's virtues"-How is this true? Because my 'virtue is not the same as say Larry Flint, and if we operated under Flints law...it is safe to assume that virtue as Rand understands it is not going to be celebrated. Rand is generalizing way to much adn assuming everyone thinks kind of like she does. Big big mistake.

So understandingthis it is safe to assume that moral relativism is a direct offspring of accepting Rand at face value.
...More to follow.

Good Morning it's Ten o' Clock.

Good day my lil eggie weggies. Last night was one of moral contemplation as I sat finising my book Nina's Journey . My moral introspection had nothing to do with the book , but was brough on BY the book I guess in a wierd sense. In this age of moral relativism, one has to wonder how people devoid of faith in say God, can from any firm foundation form a moral absolute that then codifies laws and unltimately order. Then take into account the vast array of religions out there and then again ask yourself HOW can anyone be sure they are right? I am not making an argument FOR Christianity, but I am a Christian and believe firmly that it is the only true faith. However let's visit the objectivist camp for a moment. Here is a group of people that believe faith in anything is what really yields a relative moral compass. I cannot understand this because if that was true then humanism would have solved all our problems long ago, yet as it stands humanism has had its' offspring liberalism which in turn has produced moral relativism.Right now I am restricing my comments to simple conjecture and will save the endless reams of links and sources for later, but for the moment let us assume and accept that humanism has failed. But I can hear me eggie weggies say"Paul how can you prove this, why just look at the advances made in the last one hundred years alone!" Yes advances like Triblinka, Stalin, Pol Pot etc....All of these people and events a direct result of personal truths and moral relativism. A blanketing remark, but I challenge you to examine just the two people and the even that Hitler began, and then examine the philosophies espoused (not mouthed and then disregarded i.e. Hitler being a christians, not true at all) but the actual foundation upon which these people and events were birthed. All of these people were a direcrt result of moral relativism in its most purest and evil form. As man departs from the obedience to God and then becomes god, then follows pain, suffering and of course death. How does this relate to objectivists? Simple, objectivists maintain that religion is to blame fo the worlds problems, yet they ignore Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol, Ad Nauseum. This then leads me to ask how can objectivism BE objective without a foundation embedded in truth.
More to follow.......

Welocome and hello.

my name is Paul, I have just created a blog for preperation for my life in Krgyzstan later this summer. I am a political junkie, a student of history both in the academic sense as well as in the recreational sense. I am reading two book at the moment:The strange Death of the Soviet Empire and Nina's Journey Both of these books offer a wealth of information on my primary love, Russian history. My plans are simple I plan to do missionary work in Kyrgyzstan mainly in Bishkek (Frunze), specifically with orphans. To do this I have two plans, one is a bike mission trip, and the other is to simply work in Bishkek and take my own earnings to help others.
Socially I am rather conservative, and this bodes true for my fiscal philosophies for themost part. My favorite non-blog site is : http://forum.protestwarrior.com register there and see if you like it as well. Why Bishkek after five? Well some of my fondest memories of my last trip to my second home happened after five. I would typically go home, have tea with the fam, and later maybe go for a walk (usually ending with a visit to the pub). Play chess, or maybe watch crappy Kyrgyz television =-).