The Godless man rejects any doctrine and any authority that
attempts to go against him. He analyzes any truism that he
encounters trying to see if it is factual. Furthermore, he
gradually makes his beliefs more and more accurate, and adapts
them to the new technological and philosophical advancements
of his time.
He is thus an independent thinker. Note that being Godless,
means rejecting any god
whatsoever. When you reject any God and any dogma, you will become
"Godless", independent and free.
Who is the most powerful man on Earth? Take some time to think
of it before you decide on the final answer. When you are ready -
read on.
Now, I'll tell you what I would answer if someone asked me the
question "Who is the most powerful man on Earth?". I would tell
them that "I am".
The statement "I am the most powerful man on Earth" is a statement
of intent, rather than stating a fact. Naturally, there are some
things other people can do that I cannot do, at least not yet. But
it is irrelevant to the fact that I have the greatest influence on
my future, and if I so wish, on the future of the world at large.
Using this recognition, I can let no force, no matter how seemingly
powerful stop me. Such a force cannot do this even if it greatly
wanted to. If all people thought so, and never considered a single
person their superior, the world would be a much better place.
Which brings us to the next issue. "I will change the World" is
, in fact, my creed. It is not necessarily everyone's creed (nor
should it necessarily be, if one does not have the necessary
ambition), but it is mine.
Many people in history have changed the world. Many people are
still changing it today. It is my desire to become one of these
people, who will change the world in the future.
There is still a great deal of evil, irrationality and stupidity
in the world. Despite popular belief, it should not necessarily
be that way, as people are not bad by nature. (and in fact, most
of the people who claim or imply otherwise are the truly evil
ones). I plan to do my best to eliminate this irrationality from
the world.
However, even after my co-conspirators and I succeed, I still
believe there would be a place to change the world. One can change
the world technologically or scientifically as well, as much as
Galileo and Newton revolutionized the world of Physics up in their
days, and Albert Einstein did it again among an otherwise
enlightened scientific community.
Many people have a negative sense of life and try to kill such
ambitions among their peers. You can hear such things as
"you have no influence", "you are nothing", "you are just a small
screw in the machine", etc. Yet, these claims have no basis in
reality and are nothing but a pointless attempt to kill ambition.
Some people were able to change the world for the better, some by
intention and some by accident. They did it even though they were
not particularly exceptional in their intelligence or other
qualities. If they could do it, so can you and I.
And while I am at changing the world, let me make another
preposterous claim: I am, in fact, the Messiah. And I think
every man who agrees with the previous claim should say that
(at least in the present troubled times).
Some people have claimed that the Messiah will come when he
is no longer needed. I have a vital correction to that: the
Messiah will come when everybody assume his role. And I fully
intend to be among the first to recognize this.
Another reason why I say so, is to throw it in the face of
all the religious types. They are so lame that they are
waiting for a Messiah to come.
Well, I stopped waiting a long time ago, and simply became him.
Are you going to wait as well?
How do I Define Myself?
What would I say if you ask me "How do you define myself?". As a Jew?
As an Israeli? As an Objectivist? As a Liberal? I am all of these,
but that's not how I define myself. In fact, I define myself simply
as "Shlomi Fish".
For once, I believe that defining myself as any property of me, does
not do justice to myself. I am de-valuating myself this way.
Furthermore, and equally as importantly, when malicious people try
to convince me or other people of doing something, they would say
"As a Jew, it is your responsibility to do X", "Every self-respecting
Israeli should do Y". They will hardly ever say "as Shlomi Fish,
you need to do X and Y".
The first thing a religion or a doctrine tries to take away from you
is your personal identity. They want you to feel as if it's more
important to define yourself as a member of their collective, than as
the individual that is yourself. No one should fall into this trap.
LS-MS-RS-DWI!
"LS-MS-RS-DWI!" stands for "Logic Sucks, Morality Sucks, Reality Sucks
- Deal with it!". This is one of my mottoes, and let me explain what
it means.
First of all there's the part that I mention Logic, Morality and
Reality, all of which are absolute in
Objectivism.
But I also say
that they all suck and that one should deal with it. The implication
is that you cannot go on blaming others or the world at large for
your problems. It is up to you to make sure you manage your way
through reality, despite whatever obstacles you encounter.
You can often hear people irrationally blaming others or the world
at large for their problems. Even some claimed Objectivists err on
this part. Yet, this is a clear indication that they themselves are
incompetent, or else they would not have needed to blame others or
the world at large for their own problems.
In fact, most destructive people actively emit such routine
accusations. One common theme of most doctrines is the "scape goat"
principle, in which you find an enemy that can unite the followers, so
they would be willing to lose their freedom for the sake of fighting
him. This was the case for the Jews in Nazism, the Capitalists in
Socialism, Israel for the post-WWII Arabs. It is the case for drug
users in many countries today, and recently fundamentalist Islamic
terrorists volunteered to be just that. (in an attempt to deprive the
liberty of the innocent people).
As a godless person, it is important that one will have no scape goats
of this kind, and that he or she will acknowledge that one's problems
are primarily his own, and that it is up to him to solve them.
So, just "deal with it"!
The Warrior Philosopher
I am a warrior philosopher. What it means is that I'm not an Ivory
Tower philosopher, who isn't active in changing the way things are.
Instead, I'm very active to promote the ideals I convey.
As a warrior philosopher, I won't rest until the last remnants of evil
are eliminated from this world. Nothing can stop me, and nothing
will. There is a very delicate way to enlarge the community of
warriors philosophers: first, become one, then make others, who will
spread and make others as well.
Warrior philosophers are independent of one another, and each one can
potentially make a world of difference for himself or herself and the
surrounding society.
Another thing that is apparent about a warrior-philosopher is his
commercialization. While my philosophy is free-as-in-free-speech and
publicly available for everyone to read, distribute, modify and
re-use, my time and presence are not. In fact, when and if I become
successful, I am routinely going to demand a price for giving speeches
or presentations. Perhaps even higher and higher. While I may in fact
do somethings for free in certain occassions, as a whole I would be
a performer looking to make a living out of one of the things he
likes to do and does best. (i.e: philosophy)
A warrior philosopher does not stand idly watching while the corrupt
politicians are running his or her country and the world at large.
Instead, he actively voices his opinion, criticizes the politicians,
even claim he is the ultimate authority on what should be done. Thus,
he or she is gradually taking more and more power out of the elected
leadership, that the fact it was elected cannot give it more authority
than if we consider the fact that a dictatorship of the majority is
a good one.
Here is a thought for you: why don't you announce yourself as a
competing prime minister/president in your country? A better, more
honest, and less limited alternative to the elected prime minister.
In Israel at least, the leadership (prime minister and members of
the parliament) are a joke and I'm certain I can do better. I don't
see the fact that most people elected someone, as anything that
gives him or her an authority to become the dictator of the people.
So, I'm simply going to become a competing prime minister who will
uphold Liberalism, Freedom, Capitalism, Individualism, and
rationality, which I cannot say that any of our elected leaders
consistently do.
I won't be a politician - just a statesman of integrity, and won't
have to constantly deal with my public image. If I am honest all the
way, I don't have to lie or to care about my public image. Some people
will like me, some will hate me, but most of the people will respect
me, because they'll see I'm consistent, and eventually realize I'm
very honest. Sooner or later, my co-conspirators and I will win.
If you hesitate on becoming a warrior philosopher, just remember the
Modified Parable of Yotam:
The plants have gone to elect a king. They went to the vine and
asked him: "would you be our king?". The vine replied: "I have
grapes to grow , so I don't really have time for being your king.
Sorry" They went to the Fig and asked him the same. The Fig
replied: "Sorry, but I need to grow figs and big leaves, so I
really can't.". And so it went on. After the ten or so plants,
the Vine said: "This is getting ridiculous. Fine, forget the
grapes. I'll be your king."
The Vine was very quickly able to organize the plants that well,
that they did not have to consult him on anything. Ever. Thus,
while he was still technically the king, he had plenty of time
to grow grapes, without missing a single season.
Reflecting Society vs. Leading it
I heard it more than once that artists claimed they did not try
to advocate something bad through their work, just that they were
reflecting the values (or lack of them) of society. This is something
I'll never do in my artwork or otherwise my life.
It is my intent to actually guide society and convert it to something
that is a whole better. I aim to be a beacon to others and behave in
the most noble and outstanding way I can. That way, people can be
inspired by me, or otherwise find comfort in my being.
If people just reflect the values of others, the society as a whole
will not advance, but rather maintain its own values, or deteriorate
further. That's why a noble man should aim to set up his own values
of honesty, integrity, and individualism and not try to reflect what
he sees in others.
The Value of Freedom
Freedom in Liberalist thought means freedom from oppression, not
freedom from responsibilities. The only limitation on freedom is
that an entity cannot perform initiatory force, threat of force
or fraud against any other entity or its property. Other than that,
everything is allowed. This is despite the many non-crimes propagated
as "crimes" by many governments or religions.
As such, freedom means the freedom to harm yourself, either
by consuming harmful substances (like Alcohol, Sugar, Tobacco, or
the currently illegal drugs), or by holding irrational beliefs.
Freedom also means the freedom to hold racist views, and even to
practice discrimination against others, as long as they do not
involve force, coercion or fraud.
Freedom means freedom to bear arms and to form alternative militias
to the government-sponsored ones. (and if necessarily oppose them)
Freedom means being free to duplicate digital media, break the copy
protection mechanisms imposed on it, and reverse engineer software.
Freedom does not mean one is privileged to necessarily receive any
kind of support from external entities. Thus, freedom means that the
government has no right to forcibly extract money out of you for most
of its whims.
Freedom means the freedom to live and work everywhere you chose, as
long as you find some means to support yourself. Thus, it is
unethical for a government to impose immigration control on its
territory.
Freedom implies the freedom of expression, which must not be violated.
Freedom means freedom of business practices, a free economy, and lack
of government control of it.
Freedom means not being forced to serve in the military against one's
will.
Freedom means being able to gamble or provide gambling services,
and practice or pay for prostitution.
Finally, freedom must be fully satisfied. Partial freedom is not
enough, and lack of freedom in some respects can always be abused to
deprive even more freedom.
Open Source and what it Means to me
No discussion of my philosophical foundations is complete without
mentioning my involvement in the Open Source initiative. I am in
fact a user of Open Source software, a developer and contributor to
several open source packages, and also an open source advocate.
If you don't know what Open Source means, refer to
an essay I
wrote about the subject. Here I'll just sum up.
Most software written is not distributed outside the organization in
which it originated. Software that is distributed to the outside can
come in several classes. Being free (as-in-speech) software, which is
mostly a synonym to open-source software means it is distributed with
the source code, allows free modification of it and free
re-distribution of it and modified forms, and that it's use is not
restricted for any purpose.
Such software differs from software that either comes only in binary
forms, cannot be re-distributed, costs money to use, or is otherwise
restricted in its use.
When I first seriously started working in a UNIX environment where
open-source software has been common and dominant for years, I did not
thought or knew too much about its guidelines or ideology. All I knew
was that there was software that came in source forms, which I could
download, compile and use free of charge, on the UNIX workstations and
servers of the company in which I was employed.
However, as I became more and more involved with Linux and the open
source community, I became aware of the principles behind free
software. There are a great deal of people who are very religious
about it. They claim that distributed software that is
non-open-source is evil and immoral, and that all software must
become open source. I don't hold this view, but I still see the
importance of the open source movement.
I routinely use open source software on a day to day basis. The
system I work with most of the time on my home computer, involve
the Mandriva Linux
System, the KDE
Desktop Environment,
the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC),
the Perl Programming Language
, DocBook/XML,
The Vim Editor and other
free software packages. I find these packages far superior to their
commercial counterparts (Microsoft Windows and other software from
Microsoft): far more enjoyable to work with, better documented,
more robust, more independent of each other, and easier to debug and
solve problems with.
As a result, I am doing my best to reduce the amount of time I'm using
Windows to a minimum as I can no longer stand using it.
Generally, it is its open source nature that has enabled making this
software superior. The code is there for everyone to
contribute to, look at, or modify, and there isn't a single entity that
holds all the cards. Therefore, it is actively being developed by a
large amount of contributors from around the world, with a lot of peer
review, support and cooperation. The open source world at large has
at its disposal human resources that one single company can never hope
to have.
I had the opportunity to contribute to several open source projects
and even to head some projects of my own. The project I invested the
largest amount of effort on so far is
Freecell
Solver.
It started out as a command line application to solve games of
Freecell, and gradually evolved. Now it can be compiled as a library
for use within Solitaire implementations, and solve other variants of
card Solitaire, is much faster, and has many more features that it
started with. Most of the work on it was conducted by me, but I also
received a lot of feedback, input and even occasional code
contributions from others. Without them, I would never have been
motivated or inspired enough to further work on it.
The amount of effort I invested in working on the code, and helping
users who encountered problems, made me realize the amount of time
and effort that is required to write a high-quality marketplace
software (open source or otherwise). One could say that it turned me
from just a "boy" who dabbled in open source to a "man" who invested
a lot of time working on a serious program like that.
Working on open source software is hard work but at the same time,
highly enjoyable. Contributing to the body of open source software
out there is a snow-ball effect: as the use value of this software
increases, so are further contributions made easier. People feel
motivated to contribute to open source software, because they actually
can, because they use it legitimately without paying a price and so
do not feel exploited, and because the developers of open source
packages encourage contributions to the code. As a result, more and
more people actively contribute to it, either by occasional bug reports
or patches, or even by more serious involvement.
Don't get me wrong. I think the most important trait a software should
have is that it will "just work": be bug-free, easy to install and use,
well-documented and get the job done. There is too much open source
and non-open source software out there that fails to achieve that
goal. Furthermore, if a non-free software can achieve the required
goal better than a free one, I may recommend using it instead.
Still the open source model (especially when following the Bazaar
Model of development) has proved that it can competently
fill more and more niches in an equal or better way than commercial
software can. Open source software is very attractive to the user
and the developer alike for the reasons I mentioned.
Finale
I hope you enjoyed reading this essay and that it inspired you in
one way or the other. With best regards:
The Godless Man
The Most Powerful Man on Earth
The Man who will Change the World
The Messiah
The Man who Defines himself as Shlomi Fish
The Man who just deals with it.
The Warrior Philosopher
The Leader of Society
The Believer in Freedom
The Freecell Solver Guy
Shlomi Fish
The Man
The Legend
The Eternal Jew