About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


Post 100

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 8:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erik Christian Christensen wrote
The only thing that you are doing is making the chasm even bigger between people who may be spiritual or religious that are interested in understanding Objectivism and applying some of its ethics into their lives.
Spirituality and religion are entirely separate from theism.

Objectivism is definitely atheist, both soft (lacking a belief in god(s)) and hard (denying the existence of god(s)). On the other hand, properly understood, Objectivism is very much spiritual and there are many religions that have no concept of a god.

Precision in terminology is essential.

Post 101

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick: Objectivism is definitely atheist, both soft (lacking a belief in god(s)) and hard (denying the existence of god(s)). On the other hand, properly understood, Objectivism is very much spiritual and there are many religions that have no concept of a god.

I wish it was that easy around here... :)  Spiritual:
  1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material.
  2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
  3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
  4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
  5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.
You're just cruising for an ass-whipping... I do agree with you, though... :) For convenience, the hot words/phrases are in italics.  
Please turn in your party card at any of the convenient shredder stations...


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 102

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 3:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

Number 2 is staring you in the face: relating to the soul.

There is nothing theistic or supernatural about Aristotle's definition of soul, and Aristotle's definition is the one used by Rand and by most members of SOLO.

Post 103

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 4:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"To answer your question briefly, consult the first chapter of OPAR, "Reality."" 
Luke, in my posts #88 and #90 I was asking for your own thoughts.

The physicist Albert Einstein, who thought that a Creator exists, once said that "You never truly understand something until you can explain it to your grandmother."

The concept of Creator and its possible existence is not something that can be rejected with a wave of the hand when your goal is intellectual honesty.

Best wishes,

Joel Català
(Edited by Joel Català on 7/16, 4:47am)


Post 104

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 4:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel, the explanation in OPAR resonates with my own thoughts just as the explanations a standard science text would offer of Newton's laws of motion resonate with my own thoughts.  I make no pretense of having a greater genius than Isaac Newton or Ayn Rand.  I learn all I can from the best and then apply that knowledge to the improvement of my own condition.

I would not even bother myself with attempting to explain these ideas to my grandmother.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/16, 4:50am)


Post 105

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 5:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Please notice that Sir Isaac Newton, a genius of science with an intellectual height comparable to Albert Einstein, was also a Theist. What its a fact is that you exhibit trust in Ayn Rand's Atheism.

Best wishes,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/16, 5:27am)


Post 106

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 5:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel, I never said that any of these these geniuses was perfect.  What I meant is that I found Newton's arguments about physics and Rand's arguments about metaphysics persuasive enough to adopt them as my own.  Obviously you find the Theistic arguments about metaphysics persuasive enough to adopt them as your own.

In the end, if you are right and I am wrong, you can laugh at me while I burn in hell.  If I am right and you are wrong, neither of us will notice the difference since dead people cannot notice anything.

This discussion has become tiresome.  Please take your arguments to the Dissent Forum and engage others more willing to argue with you.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/16, 5:58am)


Post 107

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam: There is nothing theistic or supernatural about Aristotle's definition of soul, and Aristotle's definition is the one used by Rand and by most members of SOLO.

 
That's just weak. Would you like to start, or shall I? Theory first, or application?





Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 108

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel-

We Unitarian Universalists also enjoy the fact that Newton was a Unitarian, as well. :)


Post 109

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"if you are right and I am wrong, you can laugh at me while I burn in hell."

I hope that was a joke, as strawman arguments are a dishonest resource.

Best wishes,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/16, 7:39am)


Post 110

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich, you need to take that argument to the Dissent Forum also, at least in my opinion.  If you think soul, i.e., consciousness, can exist without commensurate physical organs of perception and conception, you clearly have metaphysics at odds with Objectivism.

Post 111

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel, of course it was a joke.  I laughed.  Did you?  If not, oh, well.

Post 112

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

I appreciate your words. Sometimes discussing with Objectivists becomes harsh.

I am not an Objectivist, but an ex-Atheist admirer of Judaism.

If you want to know what is my current philosophical position, you may take a look at my comments in the threads about the relation between morality and reason or about the meaning of life.

Best regards,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/16, 7:49am)

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/16, 8:33am)


Post 113

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke:

No, I wouldn't do that "also", it would be a duplication of effort. The Dissent forum is a good idea, and occasionally it is even used for pure dissent. Its actual purpose seems to be to attract newcomers that others expect to be in need of re-education.I've been around way too long for remedial re-grooving. There is no enforcement of party line in Objectivism (unless, I suppose, one is trying to write things for ARI), so I feel no need to be sent back to school. I am more interested in discussion than dissent. Dissent is the nature of discussion, anyway. That would include discussing the limitations of Aristotle beyond the fundamental law of identity. Maybe even that, under certain conditions, if you're going at it with quantum physics guys. :)  

As to consciousness-body separation, nothing could be further from my view. Ghosts in the Machine and Spirits in the Material World generally do best as the very good Police songs they are. It's a fun concept to play with in art, it's a way of seeing things from a different angle for a minute, but that's the better part of it. The denial of man being an organic whole is responsible for more things than we'll ever know.  


Post 114

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is it a given that "GOD" is a figment of the human mind?  If thus is so; can we move on from there?

Post 115

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sharon-

If you mean the old dude with the beard and the lightning bolts, sure. If you mean the divine, all that is, and all that is in it, no. :)


Post 116

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 12:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I mean any concept, of the divine, sublime, supernatural, unknowable manifestation of any awesome entity that any person is capable of naming or not naming.  Name your superlatives and name your premises; my granddaughter is waiting for the answer. The simple answer please; she's seven.
(Edited by Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald on 7/16, 12:45pm)


Post 117

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I mean any concept, of the divine, sublime, supernatural, unknowable manifestation of any awesome entity that any person is capable of naming or not naming.  Name your superlatives and name your premises; my granddaughter is waiting for the answer. The simple answer please; she's seven.
 


Here, I had something here before that I regret. Tell her this:

The guy on the Internet that seems to get grandma pissy says hello, and hopes she is having a nice day. Tell her I raised 5 girls of my own. That should do it.

Grandma shouldn't promise kids answers from people on the Internet- it makes Grandma look like she doesn't have all the answers... :)


(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/16, 1:34pm)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/16, 1:36pm)


Post 118

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 2:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

She can't be fooled; her mother's my daughter; and I've learned from King Lear to speak carefully.

Let's be serious.  My understanding of God is as an ancient invention by the more intelligent who understood some natural phenomena; and used that information to control brutes.  Over time, religions were created as control units; hence all those religious wars.

Today we understand scientific phenomena, and God doesn't work the magic on us anymore; unless one has been brainwashed into believing, that humans aren't capable of being masters of their own destinies. 

Dependency on God is a psycho/social phenomenon.  Church is a social agent, having nothing to do with an entity (other than nature which must be obeyed) outside one's own mind.

Belief in one's self as a psychological  and intellectual maturity is the one  true homily.  The gospels according to Ayn Rand are the most up to date infallible truths.

Everything comes down to taking personal responsibility.    If the fellowship of collective worship is wanted; check out Pantheism.

With notions like these; I can't understand God and Objectivism in a mutually inclusive light.  I can't get my mind around it.






Post 119

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sharon, I believe that you have mis-understood what Rich was speaking about when he speaks of the divine. It seems that you keep interpreting the divine to mean traditional religion and its precepts, faults, and fanatics. But, remember that not all people who may be spiritual believe in hell-fire and damnation. If you are unable to correctly reference one's intent then I would suggest reading up on the gospel of Ayn Rand's infallible truth's under the section entitled 'premises'. Just because Rand was an atheist doesn't mean that you have to follow in her shadow. In fact, it's obvious that she was an atheist and incorporated into her philosophy due to the fact that she was raised in a completely collectivist society, so when she was forming Objectivism she had a very bitter taste in her mouth for ANYTHING that had to do with groups or rules so she threw religion into the mix. If she had been raised in middle America or even a well to do Russian family I find it highly unlikley that she would have been so hostile toward religion or spirituality.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.