Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Overanalysis in action: Ozymandias

You have probably wondered what the hell the poem Ozymandias is about. And if you don't, you probably think you do but really don't. But worry not! I am here to decipher it for you. Watch as I unravel the mystery!

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said -- "two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert ... near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lips, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Travellers, as we are wont to know, rarely come from antique lands, and thus we know little of them. What we must assume is that this land is filled with various trinkets of questionable worth hocked by men in scratchy suits hoping to make the money to feed their families for the next day.

This person, in the poem, shows himself to be one of those hucksters, formulating a complex and exciting imagery of a woe begotten empire, that nothing else remains of. To be fair, this person does a marvelous job, making the story almost worth the purchase itself.

As he mentions the end, you can mentally see him gesturing to the items mentioned at the beginning of his tale; a pair of stone legs, smaller than you'd might expect from his description, the chipped off bit of face from a half-rate statue, and then, on a small novelty pedestal, you can indeed see Ozymandias' proclamation written, albeit in poorly transcribed cuneiform.

After hearing this, we must assume the poet apologized, but did not want to own the remnants of a statue for the king of ants, and continued on one's way, later stealing his diatribe and using it for one's own poetry, trying to pass it off as insightful and brilliant.

Objectivism: Why it doesn't work

Now, here's the thing with communism: I don't believe it works, that it can form a functioning society. But I understand its dream, its purpose. I respect Marx for being that kind of person, who idealistically believes in a perfect society. Even if its impossible, it's still a nice dream.

I'm not going to say the same for Ayn Rand. Her entire philosophy is basically, "Be as greedy and selfish as you want, and feel good about it." She wants to have her cake and eat it too. She does write pretty cleverly, and had some good ideas. But the respect isn't there, since she's a crazy bitch.

Objectivism is all about benefiting oneself above all others. The funny thing about this one is that philosophers never even wanted to look at it; they just condemned it as morally repugnant and dropped it with only cursory analysis. Ayn Rand picked it up and ran with it. Some people would call her a pioneer for that. I call her a crazy bitch.

Anyways, here's how it works. Basically, we should take all actions that benefit us, and avoid those that don't. The reason society works is that people accept that there are certain things that we must do to maintain society, and it is beneficial to us to maintain them. Sounds good so far, right?

Here's where it falls apart(and why Rand is a crazy bitch). Collectively, its in our best interests to support the infrastructure. However, individually, if we don't make our contribution, society won't grind to a halt. The trains won't stop running on time. Crime won't skyrocket. However, under Objectivism, if every single person makes that assumption, society WILL collapse. That's a tricky proposition.

Therefore, Objectivism can only work if:
1. Only the people with power actually believe in objectivism. This means that it can't even support itself without the help of other philosophy. Good job.
2. Punishment is increased for lack of help. There's a catch-22 here, though. To carry out that punishment, one must appropriate funds to society to allow them to do that. If everyone under objectivism doesn't pay, then suddenly you can't punish. Neener neener neener.
3. We have to take actions that don't benefit us compared to the reward. Oh wait, that's not Objectivism.

So, what have we learned? Objectivism sucks, Rand is a crazy bitch.

Thank you.