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 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 100

Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam-
You're well on your way to that third icon.  Of course I'm sure Robert D. will respond to your argument by saying that you are a bitter and horrid person without a sense of life.  He may even call you facile and say that you are bullying him and that he refuses to answer questions from someone posing as SOLO's thought police. 

If he does say these things, fuck him.  You made some good posts irregardless of how he tries to squirm his way out of answering them. 


Post 101

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

That was an excellent post, worth engaging and worthy of someone who takes ideas seriously.  A more lengthy reply will follow.


Post 102

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789

Deism even with its lip-service towards being 'natural' religion, is still a religion advocating a mystical entity beyond man's comprehension.
The problem with discussions of the spiritual is the undefined prejudicial concepts involved, e.g. mystical, religion. Rand in her introduction to the Fountainhead addresses this problem when she says, "…I said that religious abstractions are the product of man’s mind, not of supernatural revelation".

The deist ‘god’ was ultimate reality apprehended by reason, since Rand defines "mysticism as any claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, supernatural source of knowledge"; she could not have been talking about Deists.

First of all, nature does not posess free will. If it does could you send me a video of you arguing with it?
Perhaps you are correct that nature has no free will but it appears to be creative/causal, or Rand could not write as she does in The Objectivist Ethics, "Nature gives him [man] no automatic guarantee …nothing is given to man on earth (given by whom?) except a potential and the material on which to actualize it…ethics [given, provided] by the grace of reality and the nature of life." What is this nature/causal agent that gives man ‘a potential’? What is ‘the grace of reality’? You have said nothing about what it is except to tell me it has no free will.

Second, the axioms of existence apply throughout the universe, not just on planet Earth… So you see, the axioms of existence apply beyond our earthly boundaries.
I never said they didn’t. I said that the universe is not a universally benevolent habitat for man.

First something cannot be created from nothing.
Then you reject the Big Bang theory?
However, lets assume this creator has a ton of modeling clay from which to shape the universe. We still don't have any idea of who or what created the creator, or who created the creator of the creator, etc. Or in otherwords, we have the series of infinite regression.
Leonard Peikoff writes, "[T]he causal link does not relate to two actions. ... The law of causality states that entities are the cause of actions... not that the cause of an action is action, but that the cause of action is entities." Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 16. The Objectivist theory of causality is entity-based, not event-based. Therefore, an event can be without any prior cause other than the existence of the entity that caused it, in other words you would not have a continuous chain.
. . .no more than we are here due to random chance. We are here as an inevitable result of natural causality. Causality is the underlying explanation for everything that is in the universe not here of man's choice. Ironically, man's ability of free will itself is a product of causality as it became imperative for our survival during the evolutionary proccess.
The Objectivist view of causality is that events are caused by entities, not other events. As Rand put it, "The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 954.
With that out of the way, you claim that the 'benevolent universe' is a personification.
As are nature and reality. Nature ‘provides’ man with the tools of survival. Reality ‘arbitrates’ disputes among honest men.






Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 103

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 2:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The deist ‘god’ was ultimate reality apprehended by reason, since Rand defines "mysticism as any claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, supernatural source of knowledge"; she could not have been talking about Deists. "

No, Rand was refering to the Deists too.  This is the key epistemological error involved in such arguements and one that you can't seem to ever get past.   The deist god is not ultimate reality apprehended by reason, it is ultimate reality apprehended by rationalism.  It is an explantion of reality divorced from any true knowledge of reality.  It is an inference that is not based upon sensory evidence and thus is not objective knowledge.  The deists, while they are toned down mystics -- mystics stripped of the elaborate irrationalism of the common theist are still in murky waters because they take the first errant step into claims of knowledge divorced from objective epistemological standards.  Their toned down mysticism was a step in the right direction but it is still mysticism. 

 - Jason


Post 104

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 2:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There are things that commonly happen if you're discussing things in Objectivist-oriented sites, even SOLO, that are just, well, trends. There are a couple of core reasons. Probably the overriding one is that Ayn Rand didn't ever include cosmology as a system builder. Maybe the farthest she went was to acertain the topic of this thread. It was a great enough gift she left us with her earthbound system. You can put a lifetime into that, as well one should.

The situation speaks to the quote (was it Linz?) that was brought up where Nietschze advised to forgive the first generation of any philosophers' students.
They are like people who were given a baby to raise but don't know how to raise a baby.

As I have said before, the term "mysticism" is often broadly applied by students of Ayn Rand's system (SOARS). And broad application of a term is problematic in any discussion.

At the same time, modern liberal theologists (notice I said theologists not deists) use words differently. The word "faith" comes to mind; when a good SOARS hears that, they often knee-jerk- faith means believing in something for which there is no evidence, as a practice those ascribing to using "faith" in their lives are irrational, and so on.

The most common trend is that if someone goes anywhere near "mysticism" (which, given the broad definition, you can do by farting funny), they are accused of being a deist. That's an error. Not only that, but it usually means the western conception of the deity, which is, from what I can tell, the basic whitebread God (old guy, robe, smiting, etc) that was taught to most middle class people.

In a phrase, knees jerk. The pipeline gets narrowed very quickly, based on frame of reference, which was usually a bad experience, which was what led the person to Objectivism in the first place, and we can all understand that.

I could go much further into this, but it is not the right place. Let's just say that to summarize my post, I think there are semantical issues, how's that? :)

rde
Unitarian Universalist


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 105

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich, I am still waiting for your article.  I can only ask you in response to your NUMEROUS (and highly frivolous) posts regarding our supposed "misunderstanding of mysticism" to PLEASE COME FORWARD WITH YOUR EVIDENCE OF THIS.  Stop posting petty little snipes and give us your argument.  You always say "this is not the place for this" in response to why you won't answer this simply request.  I hope you don't do this again.  

 - Jason


Post 106

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 3:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
After delving into Jungian psychology, the only sympathy I can see an Objectivist having for mysticism is in the idea of knowing oneself through introspection, but that does not require anything supernatural or any secret initiations. Arguing for mysticism through an Objectivist framework seems contradictory.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 107

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 3:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

The deist god is not ultimate reality apprehended by reason, it is ultimate reality apprehended by rationalism
You may be correct, but I don't think you could have convinced Jefferson of it.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
 

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
 
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.


Post 108

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 3:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

You don't seem to realise it, but agree with you.


Post 109

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 3:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I was referring to Jason's challenge to Rick to present his article...I am aware of the accusations against you, personally wasn't referring to that, just the idea in general of deism being compatible with O'ism.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 11/11, 3:36pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 110

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It strikes me that the real fringe is that of Rich's - and far from his claiming the so-called 'Oist' definitions are not the 'real' ones, HIS are not the 'real ' ones, but rather, are of the fringe group he's in...
(Edited by robert malcom on 11/11, 5:37pm)


Post 111

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dare I wade into this fever swamp of a forum post? Why not, I've got a long three-day weekend.

The phrase "Benevolent Universe" as used by Rand is one of the most loaded terms I've ever heard, completely irreconcilable with her atheism.

The very etymology of the phrase betrays the internal contradictions in her philosophy. "Benevolent" means "good will". Who's will? Clearly not man's, since she's talking about the universe, and soundly rejects the solipsistic view that man--any man--is the universe, or that his will shapes the universe. This leaves two possible interpretations: (1) The universe has a will, and it is good, or (2) The Entity responsible for the universe has a will, and it is good. In either case, we're left with some Superconscious guiding the physical laws of the universe, the proper modus operandi of man, and therefore the morality of man.


The reasons for Rand's atheism are an enigma to me. She painstakingly thought through every metaphysical issue imaginable, but completely punted when it came answering questions about the "will" of the Universe or the origin of the laws which rule the universe. It would seem that Rand, rather than an atheist, could be better described as an "apathist". It isn't so much that she disbelieved God as just she didn't care to answer the question of God's existence.

Nevertheless, if you're going to interpret the axiom "benevolent universe" in an objectivist framework, you need to have some Superwill making the universe a nice place to live. If given the choice, in order to avoid contradiction, between eliminating the concepts of (A) a benevolent universe, (B) a objectivist framework for reality, or (C) an atheistic universe, I will happily choose to eliminate (C). I don't see how atheism is essential to objectivism, or how the universe can be benevolent without a God structuring it as such.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 112

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Troll alert...

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 113

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Was it Rand or Peikoff who stated this idea in my post:
"I thought Rand made it perfectly clear what she meant; she said that the universe was "benevolent" because if one followed the rules, one would gain the desired reaction. It means that things work properly as opposed to randomly (for instance, if one follows a chemical formula to create something, it will be the resulted product consistently, it won't be cleanser one day and toothpaste the next...). "

How does this imply a contradiction in Rand's atheism? There's no suggestion of an intelligent designer, or that the universe actually "cares," it's just another way of saying that "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed", and that laws of physics don't act randomly.

And as someone who discovered Rand as part of a quest to find God, I ironically agree with this :"It isn't so much that she disbelieved God as just she didn't care to answer the question of God's existence." Yes, she was an "apathist," because she didn't care to engage in pointless discussion. "How many angels can fit on a pinhead?" Who cares? It's a pointless question, because it has no basis in reality.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 114

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So the universe has rules, "works properly", isn't random, and one living in that universe gets rewards if he follows those rules.

Yet none of these phenomena suggest an Intelligent Designer. But the universe is still benevolent.

Sorry, I don't buy it. The physical universe is run by laws and rules. Law and rules are ideas. Ideas necessitate an Identifier, a Consciousness. Thus some Consciousness structured all the laws in which the physical universe functions. I've made this proposition before. Furthermore, this rules necessitate a Will to structure the universe as such. That Will is good, allowing a good life for good behavior. Thus, a Benevolent Universe.
(Edited by Protagonist
on 11/11, 7:46pm)

(Edited by Protagonist
on 11/11, 7:47pm)


Post 115

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Law and rules are ideas."

When we say laws and rules in regards to the physical world, we're referring to how things happen. Early man may not have had an idea of gravity, but they were still subject to "the law of gravity." (Even Wile. E. Coyote realized this!)
So obviously we need to differentiate between "the metaphysical and the manmade." You don't have to buy it, Protaganist, but you'll not be walking off any cliffs anytime soon, I assume.

Post 116

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I hope not.

I accept the premise that physical laws are not malleable according to my perception and/or belief of them. My mind is the object and not the subject of the reality around me, i.e. the essence of Objectivism.

However, whence these rules/laws/ideas which control the physical universe? Although I do not structure the universe, some Consciousness still does. Thus, to paraphrase a old Rabbi's saying, I am left with two basic truths: (1) There is a God, and (2) I'm not Him.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 117

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Protagonist,

You are making a confusion between the words and the concept. In your concept of benevolent universe, you get your God. In the way Rand used this expression, she was discussing a psychological phenomenon called "sense of life."

This mistake is possible for another reason, also. You are talking strictly about metaphysics. Rand is talking about metaphysics from an epistemological and ethical view - how a person reacts to existence. She is talking about a very deep personal value judgment for each individual.

It is a mistake to try to put your concept into her words as she used them. The discussion becomes semantics only. (I recently did something similar, i.e., removed the normative abstraction from "turn the other cheek" to see how it worked as a strategy, except my motive was not to say that Rand was a closet Christian, as yours seems to be to say that she was a closet-mystic.)

Actually, this whole confusion is the result of using a normative abstraction based on psychological facts, not a metaphysical fact (which would be the entity that was benevolent), and using the metaphysical almost as a metaphor. On a purely cognitive level, i.e., metaphysical level, the phrase "benevolent universe" could only mean strictly what it says, which is your interpretation - in other words, the universe is benevolent independently of man.

It's just that Rand never meant it that way. She constantly said that the universe is rationally knowable by the human mind. Thus her phrase means that the value judgment of this fact - that it can be known - makes the universe feel benevolent to a rational human being. The artist, not the philosopher, was speaking.

Michael


Edit - Rand once wrote that cosmology needs to be thrown out of philosophy.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/11, 8:16pm)


Post 118

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Protaganist, you referred to making a proposition before, where you state:

God does not exist in this physical universe and is not subject to the law he made. Are you an atheist? So am I. Do you believe that God does not exist? So do I. God does not exist in this physical universe, but having created it, "hyper-exists" independently of it. I have no words to express God's nature, nor can there be words to express concepts to explain God, since God created "concepts".

You also claim in your profile that you are " a born-again Christian, unapologetic over his apologetics, as it were."

Thanks for stating your position so clearly.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 119

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And the ghost of Augustine rises again...

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.