Navigating the Tides of Civilization: A Fusion of Perspectives

Unveiling the Harmony Between Herbert's Dune, Classical Liberalism, Rand's Objectivism, and Stoic Philosophy in Pursuit of True Progress and Freedom

“Most civilisation is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.” ― Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune

What’s going on? Well, we’ll dive right into it. The following is a thought experiment that intertwines some ideas from Frank Herbert’s “God Emperor of Dune,” classical liberalism, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, and Stoicism to give you a critique on civilization and governance. We'll discuss the balance between order and freedom, how bravery trumps cowardice every time, and individual liberty's role in societal progress.

There's no doubt that civilization promotes order at the cost of freedom. It requires us to live by rules and norms to function properly. However, Herbert feels like this breeds cowardice rather than bravery (which I find interesting). And while this might not be immediately apparent, it does make sense when you take a step back.

For example, Classical liberalism doesn’t believe in an overreaching government or excessive regulations because it thinks these things only stifle our potential as individuals. Instead, it focuses on personal responsibility, which encourages us all to confront life's unpredictable nature head-on with courage as its main weapon.

Objectivism is Ayn Rand’s philosophy where she champions individualism above all else which goes hand in hand with classical liberalism's skepticism about an overbearing government. She believes that societies should only provide a framework for individuals to thrive without infringing on others' rights instead of trying to tame them under the guise of maintaining order.

Stoicism agrees with objectivism but also adds that we should be rational when it comes to our own desires in life, mainly because they are one of the few things we can actually control. By focusing strictly on what is within our control, we can ignore what isn’t and free ourselves from having misguided desires or emotions forced upon us.

All three viewpoints seem like they’re saying similar things, but their critiques are given from different angles: civilizations have a tendency to force uniformity onto people, which completely stomps out any innovation or growth we might’ve all had as a collective. In a way, by doing this, we’ve sacrificed our own individual freedoms just to feel some security.

We’re left with the question: So what do we do now? To summarize, Herbert, classical liberalism, Objectivism, and Stoicism tell us that civilization doesn’t thrive by suppressing the human spirit but by liberating it. These beliefs encourage us to construct societies that prioritize bravery, responsibility, and innovation instead of stability and well-being. It’s only through an individual's freedom that they can truly lead a meaningful life.