Rand's Last Public Lecture: The Sanction of Victims
Posting as a follow-on to Eudaimonia's post on survey of professions' contribution to society. the Q and A at the end is quite provocative, including statements about time for a tea party and her thoughts on Reagan
SOURCE URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XiBU8geK08
a little helpful...but no definitive answer.
Reason and logic are like algebra. They are. Her personality is a curiousity, not essential at all to Objectivism.
Now that you have been able to parse a simple example and see the logical fallacy, I encourage you to go back through Ayn's work and do the same. She assumes dichotomies many times which do not exist. Since it is logical and reasonable for there to be more than two groupings, what does that do to her conclusion? It is probably reasonable and valid for the folks who DO belong to the two groups, but what of the others?
Another incredible limitation in her philosophy which is glaringly obvious to Christians was her denigration of Jesus Christ for his sacrifice in the garden and cross. She could not believe in a religion who taught of a sacrifice of that kind from the one they worship. She claimed she would be insulted by it if she were a Christian. Those were her words. Her short-sightedness comes because she will not acknowledge the potential of a life after death, and that to God, this life is but a short period of our eternal nature. We lived with Him before we were born; we have this life of mortality; we will live again after we have died.
Since she will not accept the potential of this, everything she attempts to say about religion is skewed. Since the lumps the "family" in with "god" as "slop," you cannot even appeal to her philosophically about God being our Father, and sacrificing for His children.
As the saying goes "you cannot see what you will not look for." She will not see thee things, therefore, her comments on them are not valid.
Again, I will repeat: I see the value in what she espoused within the context of her authority. I accept she knew and understood those things well enough to write a book like AS. She seems to be spot on in that regard.
But that is as far as she can be logically or reasonably granted.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/soul-atlas...
You may find it interesting.
I actually had started contemplating something similar myself. Perhaps not a book length treatise, but some kind of document that outlined Objectivism from a strictly Christian point of view. Ayn outlined it from a strictly atheistic point of view (in theory).
After listening to her speak, I no longer believe she is an atheist. She is, in large measure, a secular humanist. Part of their "theology" is that they are their own gods. She is her god -- hence she cannot be atheist. I do not say this to demean her, simply to point out a relevant point which does make a difference in how you read her, and by extension, her alter ego, John Galt.
But back to my point: Is it possible to discuss Objectivism from the point of view of a Christian? I pondered on that point last night. Apparently someone else pondered on that point enough to write a book on it.
Thanks for the link...
Please listen to her interview till the end...Many people, even Objectionists I think, believe that Ayn Rand was an atheist. However, I don't agree. I think she was a Deist. A Deist does not believe that the existence of God matters, because a Deist believes that God does not intervene in mankind's daily life. As such, all that matters is that we each live are lives morally. I believe her philosophy is that anyone who abandons his or her own best interest is abandoning his or her responsibility to oneself, and as an extension to mankind. Because it is only through the advancement of oneself that each can collectively then advance mankind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
She is not afraid to mention God in reference to the Republic.
If you are speaking about how Rand felt regarding people saying "God Bless America," I am aware of that and agree with her sentiment 100%
And I also liked her comment, since she uses "God" in the same context that I do.
I was happy to see this...!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAFKnfN4b...
A good interview, and worth the 29:04 of my time!
I was a great fan of Tom Synder, and had to chuckle as his cigarette smoke came between Ayn and the camera! I grew up in a great time for television, and could spend days reminiscing about the old shows.
Just alert me to this being an Ayn interview, and not some other bizarre trip down musical lane!
P.S. Don't give up your day job for DJ'ing...The Sound of Music???
I downloaded the video and watched it. I also downloaded a number of other ones. I wanted to get to her Ayn, as a person. I have to say she was antagonistic and rather rude about people who believed in God (or god), and considered herself above them in every way.
*IF* she believed in a god at all, it is herself. In one of the interviews, a person asked her if she thought she was perfect, and her answer was yes.
So I have to agree with the concept that she is a "deist," and point out that from what I saw these past two days, she, and her profound intellect and reason, was her god.
Ayn Rand has given the world Objectivism, and done her best to define it as she understood it, from her point of view and her life. She deserves credit and honor for doing so. But now the world has Objectivism, and it will be massaged and worked on by others. Rand deserves her place in history as the founder. I happily give her that distinction and honor.
Much like Sigmund Freud with psychoanalysis. He, virtually single-handedly, created a new industry, and validated an entire field of research and analysis. He deserves his place in history. For a period of time during and after his death, his disciples held rigidly onto his every dictum. They were the gospel on which these individuals built their empire. Yet over time, others found the errors in his original comments, and corrected them. Freud's personal proclivities, his hangups on sex, etc, were eventually overcome by other individuals who did not share those issues. Today there are few truly Freudian psychologists, even though most of them still use much of the same techniques and have benefited from his life's work. It took a long time and a lot of effort to overcome Freud's original disciples and move on, but it happened.
I believe there will come (and it looks like it is already happening) a new generation of Objectivists who do not share Rand's prejudices and proclivities. They will redefine Objectivism by taking her issues into consideration, and re-expressing the tenets of Objectivism using more generalizable terms. They will ferret out the fallacies and replace them with corrected statements. They will make the obscure, perhaps obtuse, tenets more serviceable and useable to the common man.
I'm betting these movies will help push that along. People who are not aware of Randian philosophy will watch the movies, then, perhaps, do some research into her, the story, Obiectivism, etc, and see where it matches their life and where it doesn't. Some of them will be sociologists and philosophers, and they will have the skills needed to correct some of the things they perceive to be errors.
Objectivism now belongs to the world. Ayn Rand deserves her place in history as the woman who made it happen, It is a powerful philosophical and political concept which will demand the attention of all sentient beings (meaning those who still can actually *think*). But I doubt what my grandkids will understand as Objectivism will be the same as what we think of it today.
Rand will forever be honored for her place in history. Just like Freud is. She **DESERVES** that honor!
My caution to the current Randians is to not be like the Freudians, and stomp on those who might make the attempt to further the concepts of Objectivism and correct some of the fallacies which exist in it. I'm not really sure that caution is needed here (for present company). Considering the potential that my comments on Rand could have whipped up a frenzied firestorm against me, and the fact that they did not, tells me that at least most of the folks in this group are open minded about these things. Thanks!
Ayn Rand is not an atheist. She claimed to be, and probably believed herself to be. But she wasn't. She was a Secular Humanist, through and through. She believed herself perfect in this religious dogma -- even while refusing to acknowledge it as such. I guess at the same time, I should point out that Rand and Secular Humanism have one major point of distinction -- and it is a *MAJOR* point, to be sure. Secular Humanism believes in "social responsibility" and Rand totally rejects this notion. But from the outside, that is much like watching Shiite and Sunny Muslims argue about which one is the true religion. Most of us don't care.
Also, the major humanists she would have known (Charles Potter, John Dunphy, and John Dewey) saw humanism in a type of religious aura. As Dunphy put it: "The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: A religion of humanity -- utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to carry humanist values into wherever they teach. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." Since Rand obstinately refused to acknowledge religion in any form as worthwhile, she would have recoiled from a religiously defined humanism as well. But from the view of history, this is little more than syntactic sugar wrapped around the reality to make it palatable for the masses. Rand would have rejected the same references to religiosity that others were attracted to. But the core beliefs are what I am talking about.
Where it comes down to "reality," Rand had the attitudes needed to be an apostle to the sect of secular humanism. One day she may be acknowledged as such. For people who like these attitudes in her (and in S/H), this is not a slam, but a complement. For others, is might seem like a denigrating remark. I intend it to be an observation, and neither a complement or derogatory.
Rand, personally, had a number of concepts with are in line with Secular Humanism. She was probably more radical in her belief that there is no possibility of a god-like diety. But she wrapped up into herself the qualities which many ascribe to deity. Her reason was without flaw; she was perfect within the realm of her reason and life, I doubt she would recoil at the statement that she worshiped her mind, she allowed for no other potential dogma or doctrine than her own, etc. She believed herself to be her deity. Hence she was not an atheist.
But, again, I believe her uncompromising attitude towards anything remotely related to religion, combined with her ardent zeal in promulgating her new dogma of Objectivism, would have caused her to never acknowledge the similarities.
I guess for Objectivism, some might thing that might be too bad. The S/H camp does not need the Objectivists -- they control too much and are too well entrenched in the power structure driving our society. But if Objectivism could have joined in with S/H, it might have made a difference in where things were going, and, I think, that difference could have only been for the better.
Rand came up with a wonderful philosophy. It is making a difference. Hopefully the movies will continue to bring more folks to the table.
While the philosophy may evolve somewhat, it must adhere to its rules in order to be defined and distinct from other philosophies. As with any philosophy, take from it what you will, but to fault it on the basis of its tenets for not being inclusionary, would be to dilute its definition.
To suggest Rand is more predisposed than a Christian or other religious practitioner does not make sense to me. You want to discredit her rigidity without qualifying your own rigidities in your faith. Bottom line: logical systems are rigid.
about brussel sprouts: the bitterness is nicely removed if one tosses them in olive oil, a little salt and pepper and broils them long enough to caramelize. ;)
"My caution to the current Randians is to not be like the Freudians, and stomp on those who might make the attempt to further the concepts of Objectivism and correct some of the fallacies which exist in it. I'm not really sure that caution is needed here (for present company). Considering the potential that my comments on Rand could have whipped up a frenzied firestorm against me, and the fact that they did not, tells me that at least most of the folks in this group are open minded about these things. Thanks!"
He is thanking us for not "stomping", and keeping a civil debate going.
I, for one, am enjoying the discussion!
Let's define the points of the philosophy:
1) That existence, consciousness, and identity are axiomatic. Reality exists as an objective absolute -- facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2) Knowledge acquisition outside personal perception(s) requires the exercise of free will and validation through observation, as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3) Living organisms face the reality of life and death; possessing free will, human beings must choose their values; rational ethics are required for humans to decide what principles of action are required to implement his chosen values; an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being.
Man -- every man -- is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be a complete separation of state and economics.
Now, having stated the four philosophical points, are you sure that Rand's philosophical explanations can only evolve "somewhat," or it will lose its distinctness? Given the above items, is her rigidity justified?
Could a Christian express the above tenets within the context of Christianity? Could a Hindu? Could a Buddhist? How about a Shinto? It is no wonder why Objectivism appeals to so may libertarians!
I sense there is room for advances in the philosophical tenets, and that, in time, it will evolve into something which speaks to more people. It needs to. Right now, because of her loathing of all things religious, she, herself, gets in the way of religious individuals who would adopt these tenets with fervor from ever considering it. And, frankly, I agree with their reticence. Seeing her talk about religion made *ME* want to walk away from this! I made a conscious decision to try to make these points, and see if there is movement to something more accepting of people of faith.
If you note from the above, atheism (or self-deism) is not a philosophical point of Objectivism. It is a personal prejudice of hers. We need to get past that.
I made observations based on her own words, her own actions, her own comportment, and her own ideas. If they are a discredit to her, then, perhaps, she deserves the discredit.
While I am certain she would use a variety of denigrating terms in response to my assessment of her personality quirks, that does not invalidate what I said. She made rude and denigrating comments, and then reeled at the smallest of slights, refusing to answer the question. Okay, so she was thin-skinned. Who isn't?
I decided on a tactic. Rand is absolute and unmovable. She says what she says, and refuses to apologize for it. She makes a stand which is at the logical extreme, and accepts no potential of another valid possible position. So I would use HER tactics to describe her.
Those who accepted her philosophical stance would see my mimicking of Rand's personality, and either appreciate my tactic, or hate me for acting like that. I was actually somewhat shocked at the lack of either response.
Rand was not as perfect as she openly claimed she was. None of us are. Her largest personal flaw, to my way of thinking, is her overwhelming arrogance to not accept even the potential that another option could possibly be valid.
She designed something wonderful, and was (obviously) able to take that philosophical dogma, and use it to prognosticate with such accuracy that today people just cannot understand how she did it. She deserves her place in history -- and I honestly hope history treats her well.
Logic, especially when applied to non-concrete topics like philosophy, are generally recognized rules that, in theory, allow us to evaluate a series of statements to see if their premise supports the conclusion. It is not hard-and-fast. This is why it is called "informal logic." The study of logical fallacies is its evil twin sister. Only when a series of logical propositions leading to the conclusion are shown to be free of logical fallacies can we call the conclusion an authoritative one.
Logic is only one of the sub-fields within the greater field of philosophy. From my reading and listening, I do not believe this is a sub-field she was interested in. She seems more focused on the moral, ethical, political branch of philosophy. Although she did write a book on epistemology, yet another branch of philosophy, but since I know nothing about that text, I will have to leave that part go for now.
Having said that, epistemology is strongly driven by a form of rationalism and reasoning, so I could accept that her focus was on both, or either -- or she didn't care a fig about the established sub-fields, and was simply branching out into her own, unique, vector space, if you will. As a philosopher -- especially in a field that is as loosely defined as this is, she could, with impunity, define her own parameters.
As it is, rationalism really started (for our purposes) with Descartes and Locke. I'm not sure how far into this topic we really want to delve, but one of their basic tenets is that all we really have to work with are ideas. There was even some discussion about if our thoughts and reasoning could be used to conclude a reality exists.
Descartes is the one we famously quasi-misquote with the "I think, therefore I am" line. If memory serves, I believe his actual thought process was more like "I doubt, therefore I am actually thinking, therefore I must exist."
The bottom line, though, is that not all philosophers even agree that we can use pure reason to determine that anything is actually real, or that our concept/idea/thought actually describes a reality.
That being the case, how do we judge a philosophy which rigidly demands reasoned, logical conclusions, all based on the thought processes of one individual?
For *ME*, I judge it as being of real value, as a good starting point.
He gave us the basic rules of logic, which is non-contradictory thinking and he gave us a metaphysics based on an understanding the world is knowable. Opposed to Plato, wo believed the world was not knowable and a was not a.
Rationalism is not reason. Rationalism starts with an arbitrary premise not based on logic, or observation, and following it rationally to its conclusion. start with greatest good for the greatest number of people, you will always end up with totalitarianism, based on that asumption.
The problem is one of mixed-metaphors. The "rules of logic" behind most mathematical equations are not the same as the "rules of logic" behind expressions of ideas. I pointed that out with my A = B post. You cannot mix the two styles of logic. Just because the word is the same does not mean it has the same meaning.
Even given that, it is possible for a geometry question/problem to have multiple, correct, answers. From a "high level," even mathematics as a whole has issues with pure logic. What other vector space of rules would be seen as "complete and rational," if one set of answers was called "irrational" and another set of answers was called "imaginary"?
Rationalism is a type of reasoning. I do not know of a style of philosophy with does not somehow start with an "arbitrary" premise, and then, using certain types of logical progression, follow that through to a conclusion. The differences come in the methodology of applying "rules of logic" to the progression of ideas.
Black slavery was, in fact, based on empiricism. These black tribes in central Africa were seen as the "missing link" between apes and man. They were not, by strict observation, "human." So they could legitimately be domesticated just like any other animal, and put into forced slavery. The "observations" included very real studies on how they lived, their limited vocabulary, etc. Using strictly empirical observations, black slavery was not the same as white slavery.
Today, knowing what we know, this whole argument sounds ludicrous. We cannot believe that people were ever fooled into believing that was the case. We just have an *innate* understanding that forced enslavement of other humans is wrong -- but that now brings us to rationalism and directly away from empiricism. The more the white humans saw the black slaves, the more they realized these were humans of a different racial background as opposed to sub-human animals, and the more the innate understanding that forced slavery is wrong took over.
Getting back to your comment, I could start with the premise of "what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people" and NOT end up with "totalitarianism." It was my search for that answer which brought me to become a libertarian. So *MY* rational thought processes took me 180-degrees away from a totalitarian government. Indeed, I'm thinking that only the liberals/marxists/socialists will take that route.
1) Law of Identity: This states that things are the same as themselves, and different from other things. If you have an item, A, then it is the same as A, and different than ~A (not A).
2) Law of Non-contradiction: This states you cannot say something is both A and ~A.
3) Law of Excluded Middle: This states that there is only A and ~A, and no other group. If it is not an A, then it is a ~A.
If a logical argument fails in any of these three, then it is not a valid logical argument. If any statement along the way from initial proposition to final conclusion fails in any of these three, then the conclusion, irrespective of how right it "feels" is not valid.
A frequent source of failure is the third law, where many of the logical fallacies come into play. If the philosophical argument, for instance, states there are only two groups of people, and the reality is there are many groups, then everything else in the argument fails.
Some try to use these arguments in an attempt to justify the logical nature of the argument or proposition, but that is backwards. These are not justifications for an argument, but are limitations of the validity of the argument. These are rules the logical argument must pass in order to be considered valid.
===========================
From http://philosophy.wikia.com/wiki/Logic: Logic is generally understood and accepted as a set of rules that tell us when an argument's premises support their conclusion. An understanding of just what logic is, can be enhanced by delineating it from what it is not:
* Logic is not the 'groundness of being' - that's metaphysics.
* Logic is not a set of laws that governs the universe - that's physics.
* Logic is not an immaterial "entity" that transcends reality - that's speculative theology.
* Logic is not a set of laws that governs human behavior - that's psychology.
* Logic is not a method for 'studying the world' - that's science.
* Logic is not the method for assessing axioms - that's a matter of pure reason.
* Logic is not a way of evaluating 'truth' - that's philosophy.
Arguments
An argument is made up of groups of statements we call propositions - and every proposition contains a truth value. In the case of classic logic, this truth value is either "true" or false" - a rule we can call "bivalence". Formally: for any proposition P, P is either true or false. We use the term "proposition" instead of "sentence" because a proposition is more than just a sentence, it is a declarative sentence - asserting a specific and coherent claim, that is either true or false.
There are two types of propositions within an argument. The first, the premise, makes a commitment to truth, and is used as evidence to support the second type of proposition, the conclusion, which is the claim the argument is supposed to prove. An argument must at least imply one of each.
The study of logic, therefore, is the effort to determine the conditions under which one is justified in passing from the premises to the conclusion that logically must follow them. When an argument has this sort of justification, it is a valid argument. A valid argument with true premises is a sound argument, and guarantees the truth of its conclusion.
===========================
From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristo... All Aristotle's logic revolves around one notion: the deduction. A thorough explanation of what a deduction is, and what they are composed of, will necessarily lead us through the whole of his theory. What, then, is a deduction? Aristotle says:
A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from those supposed results of necessity because of their being so. (Prior Analytics I.2, 24b18-20)
Each of the “things supposed” is a premise of the argument, and what “results of necessity” is the conclusion.
The core of this definition is the notion of “resulting of necessity.” This corresponds to a modern notion of logical consequence: X results of necessity from Y and Z if it would be impossible for X to be false when Y and Z are true. We could therefore take this to be a general definition of “valid argument”.
===========================
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_... Following the developments in formal logic with symbolic logic in the late nineteenth century and mathematical logic in the twentieth, topics traditionally treated by logic not being part of formal logic have tended to be termed either philosophy of logic or philosophical logic if no longer simply logic.
Compared to the history of logic the demarcation between philosophy of logic and philosophical logic is of recent coinage and not always entirely clear. Characterisations include
* Philosophy of logic is the arena of philosophy devoted to examining the scope and nature of logic.
* Philosophy of logic is the investigation, critical analysis and intellectual reflection on issues arising in logic. The field is considered to be distinct from philosophical logic.
* Philosophical logic is the branch of study that concerns questions about reference, predication, identity, truth, quantification, existence, entailment, modality, and necessity.
* Philosophical logic is the application of formal logical techniques to philosophical problems.
This original thread would have 'died' a natural death days ago!
I can't read my comment until I post it is, which means I have to edit it immediately. it's getting tedious
Actually the three laws called the "Laws of Thought," of which the "Law of Identity" is the first one. Using it as the "rules of engagement," so to speak, it is easy to take a philosophical proposition and test it for validity. Using these three laws, to rephrase, it is possible to see if a philosophical proposition is valid or not.
I have actually used these three in my previous critiques. While I did not use the names of these laws, the concepts were used.
Okay. So what? Are we just looking for something we both agree on? Okay, I agree.
How does that further the discussion?
What point have I made which this alters or invalidates?
It is quite possible, for instance, for me to identify things in my life which are neither good nor evil. I am completely indifferent to them. So I DO have a choice about my capacity to feel that something is good or evil, and, additionally, there are a plethora of areas in-between. There are things in life which do not bring me joy yet are not painful to me; things I do not desire, yet are not fearful of.
This comes back to my previous comment about her black-and-white false dichotomy. She cannot, it seems, see the gray area in-between.
Perhaps the worse fallacy in the quote was the "love or hate." I know we continue to hear that these two are opposites, but they are not -- repetition does not equate to correctness. If they were, it would not be possible to hold both emotions in your heart for the same entity at the same time. The opposite of love is indifference; the opposite of hate is like. As a food, I am indifferent to brussel sprouts and, at the same time, I hate them.
We can all understand how an individual (perhaps us) can hate an abusive relative, and at the same time love them. It is the love we feel which drives the exquisiteness of the pain in the hate we also feel.
Hence, hating brussel sprouts probably does not cause emotional pain, while hating an abusive friend or relative very easily could cause more emotional pain than we can deal with.
If love and hate were opposites, we could not simultaneously hold both emotions for the same entity at the same time.
I don't care to be in a "war" of any kind, though. I would much rather encourage folks to see things for themselves, and, with their rational thoughts, to move past these issues. If open/honest dialog is "war," then what does that say about the environment the dialog is in?
As I said before, I am very impressed with the lack of personal attacks against me for saying what I have said. It does show a significant level of intellectual honesty (I believe) that folks can monitor this conversation with feeling like they need to attack the messenger(s).
I am not sure which interview this question was asked, but Lee, I really think she gave a flippant answer to a flippant question.
For those of faith, I imagine it is outrageous that there are those who seemingly, arrogantly state, there is no God. Having been raised with faith all around me, I have experienced this reaction countless times.
To your last statement, reason is absolutely vital to survival. Choosing reason (it's always volitional) must occur in order to survive. Belief in a god is not essential to survival.
Her personality is not essential to her philosophy.
I can find you any number of very polite, amiable, modest individuals who would like to see less population on the Earth, the productive slaves to the unproductive, themselves as a dictator.
2) On the claim there is no God (or god): One thing which people of faith have been buffaloed on is the dual claim by atheists, that A) there is no God, and B) you cannot "prove" a negative, therefore the atheist has nothing to prove in regards to that. This is a grand logical fallacy trap into which virtually every atheist I have personally spoken with has fallen.
The fallacy is that the "negative" assertion (there is NO God) is the same as the "negative assertion" which is claimed to be unprovable. The fallacy comes into play because there is a "positive assertion" being made: THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!
For those who are making the "negative assertion" concerning the existence of a God, they state something like "there is no proof of a God, so I cannot believe in one" -- and we call them agnostic. But the atheist argument is completely different. They don't say "we just don't know," they say "I know, and I know God does not exist!" That is, therefore, a positive argument, and demands proof.
As a person of Faith, yes, it is "outrageous" that those who have chosen to deny faith and God feel arrogant enough in their attitudes that they can simply state such, and when told to prove their assertion, hide within the realms of a logical fallacy -- and then say *I* am the one who cannot properly reason out the facts!
3) Belief in God might not be essential to day-to-day survival here in this mortal realm, but does that imply belief in God detracts from it? Why this tenacious demand of atheism? What aspect of survival is enhanced via atheism? Is *any* aspect of survival enhanced by atheism?
4) Her personality is absolutely essential to her expressions of her philosophy. The four basic tenets of her philosophy -- as taken straight from the Ayn Rand Institute's home page, could be expressed any number of ways. She expressed them in ways which were a direct reflection of her heart and personality. In the interviews where you can hear the audience reaction, it is easy to see how her personality got in the way of her message.
Look at the opposite example for a moment. Watch Obama "do his thing." He has a personality and presence that cause people to swoon, yet his actual message is destroying this country. He is enslaving the very people who love him, yet because of his personality and stage presence, these new slaves are worshiping their master. I keep hearing folks (mistakenly) say things like "...if a republican tried to do that..." They do not understand the issue. If Hillary Clinton tried to do it, SHE would be castigated at every turn! Why? Her personality isn't SO powerful that she could lie to the people like Obama does, and get away with it.
Rand had a POWERFUL message! Her personality kept it from being seen and understood as well as it should have been. After watching the interviews, if I had not seen the movies and read as much as I have, I would have walked away calling her a mindless kook. As it was, I kept trying to justify her comments -- "she was just trying to express it in absolute terms to make a point." When you find yourself doing that, it is a sign there is something wrong. I stepped back and figured it out. Her philosophy is pretty sound; her personality was an issue.
If my comments on her personality "detracts from the message," I submit that those for whom it was a "detraction" were more attracted to her personality than to her philosophy.
The problem with the assertion there is a God is it is an explanation boiling down to I do not know the answer to something(s). I ascribe the answer to God. The problem with this is it stops the inquiry. Historically, when ancients did not now the cause of thunder and lightening, the ascribed gods to it. When lightening burned down a house, perhaps a god need appeasement-sacrifice a virgin to the volcano. Modern day example: the refusal to understand evolution. Perverting scientific inquiry, leading to other errors in science. The same error of ignoring science because of a belief, what about global warming? When one abandons reason and logic, it will always lead to disastrous consequences.
soviet Russia, under Stalin, seriously eroded biological science by forcing the science to conform with communist doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lys...
I have heard lines like "when ancients did not [know] the cause of thunder or lightening" that it was ascribed to god. I have yet to see this documented except as assumptions by anthropologists and archeologists. When I look at the results of the "ancients," I see things we cannot duplicate today, and scientific understandings which are only today being understood. So at least *some* of the "ancients" were more clueful than we are today.
Global warming is an interesting example. This is a false science. One of the original conspirators has recanted, and his comments were ignored by the mainline media. That it is still being believed in is a proof that much of our society has abandoned reason and logic, and are now being led by politicians who are functionally clueless about the science and/or are corrupt enough that they don't care. When speaking of "perverting scientific inquiry," it is not the religionists doing it, but corrupt scientists and politicians.
When applying Occam's razor to religion, it is the agnostic whose explanation is the only one who can look at the razor with confidence. Religionists have much evidence in helping them to find some reasoned explanations which can pass the process. Atheists, however, have none. The assumptions required to believe that there is no God (or god or intelligent design), nor could there possibly be a god, are so huge that virtually none of them could pass through Occam's razor unscathed.
There are points within the "theory" of evolution which are observationally and empirically obvious. But that does not imply all of them are. Those who demand 100% belief in evolution cannot mount a defense which passes reason, logic, or the razor, because of all of the assumptions that have to be taken as axiomatic.
And talking about "disastrous consequences," think of what has come to pass because of secular humanism, a byproduct of combining evolution and atheism. In a nutshell, secular humanism basically states that we, as humans, are doing a really good job for advanced apes. What kind of twisted logic gave us THAT gem?
Evolution:Most humans understand two things: 1. they do not look exactly like their mother or father.(trait mixing function). 2. don't plant a palm tree outside in the artic.(selection function). This by simple observation. We have DNA very similar to chimpanzees and in fact, DNA traits similar to other animals. I can't help it, you do not enjoy sharing traits with apes. You and I are animals. But your distinguishing characteristic is your ability to reason.
I will agree we have the ability to reason. At least some humans still do....
I'm not sure where your pig and lion comparisons come from?
Genes are the way the mixing function of traits works.
You have not shown Evolution is incorrect.
The Mormons come to mind, as well as the Amish.
Not to mention the Hebrews...without their political application of their faith, they would have all perished in the world's ovens.
We all use faith everyday of our lives, although it is subconscious, and we would be unable to function otherwise: When I sit down at the dining room table to have dinner, my faith in the chair not suddenly collapsing, and putting me into traction, allows me to enjoy my meal.
When I approach a red light at a busy intersection, I have faith that my car brakes will stop me in time...and the car behind me can do the same.
And on, and on...!
"A dogma is a set of beliefs accepted on faith; that is without rational justification or against rational evidence." Playboy Interview
In order for it to be "faith" for the chair to hold you, there would be no evidence that it would do so. You have been sitting on chairs your whole life, they have either held you or they were flawed, but the EVIDENCE is that is how it goes with chairs. rational inference.
Shooting a rocket into space at a certain speed and trajectory that it will end up in orbit around the Earth, is a product of PROFOUND reason and science, no faith.
go answer my other post .
I'm not being anti-Rand. I'm just saying her ability to make authoritative comments in one area does not imply her ability to make authoritative comments in any other area.
In this site, Rand is going to come up ;)
If you find your posts to be "irrelevant", than so must I find mine to be the same.
I'll join you in leaving this thread...!
Since she, as an individual, refuses to see religion in anything but a bad light, she cannot fathom how it can be a good influence.
This leads to HUGE fallacies in her philosophy. One I will mention is called the "false dichotomy." In Galt's speech: "For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors-between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."
*SHE* built this chasm, from her own mental constructions, and everything has to stand on that, or it falls into the abyss. Either people belong to incompetents of ghosts. No in-between.
So it is not possible for me to say I have my own life and my own agency and my own power to act, and, having studied and pondered on the matter, I choose to act in the name of a God whom I have come to believe in. Because of her own short-sightedness and philosophical rigidity, my belief in God is inconsistent with her moral dogma, thus I am no longer a rational being.
Several of the interviewers I watched tried to get her to come off her high tower of atheism, and admit she could not prove no God existed, therefore at least not be so arrogant about it. She refused.
If I was making my original response (above) today, I would have said something more to the tune of "Ayn has blatantly stated she cannot believe or accept a faith based explanation, therefore her comments on faith are out of line, and altogether invalid."
As it was, I realized she was as close to an atheist as I had known, and was attempting to be charitable. This is a trait her own comportment in the videos I saw showed me she does not hold.
Speaking of her personally, it appears she is self-absorbed, almost to the point of narcissism, secular humanist, who thinks herself perfect, who worships her own mind and thoughts, with such an ardent, religious, zeal that she cannot tolerate the potential of an explanation that is outside of her own, godlike, understanding.
Professionally, it appears she developed a mind-bogglingly accurate political philosophy, and, using it, wrote some incredibly insightful books, which have changed the lives of many people. Her political philosophy is astoundingly good! I am overwhelmed at the political philosophies she espoused.
But quoting her outside of her area of expertise is like quoting Einstein outside of his. (What, for instance, did HE know about psychology? Why quote him on it. That kind of thing.)
Having said all of that, I will admit that *I* am, also, blind to things outside of my area of expertise. When I venture into those discussions, I normally try to be open minded and see what I can learn -- but sometimes my own pride gets in the way. What can I say? I'm human.. I guess the difference is folks don't try to quote me in areas I am illiterate in.
Ethics and Philosophy is not outside her expertise. Faith is irrational b definition. You accept that, but I do not, Rand did not. That hardly means "high tower of atheism" nor is it arrogant.
This is not a science. If a mathematician, say, comes up with some wonderful new theorem, you could separate his personality from his arithmetic with impunity. If a naturalist discovers a new species, the kind of person he is has no bearing on the discovery. They are "working with" things which have no bearing on their personality, and vice-verse.
But we are talking about a philosophical discussion. The kind of person she is, her mind, her attitudes, all come into play -- because THAT is what she is "working with."
Her reason and her logic are part of the basis of her ethics. Her ethics and her thought process were part and parcel to the reason and logic she came up with. They go hand in hand.
Logic, also, cannot be taken out of context. Just because there is a described logical progression of steps does not mean those steps are logical or reasonable.
Let me put it into another context. Let's use math. It is easy and straight forward, and presumably all of us can see how it works and verify it for themselves. I will use nothing but rules used in the math all high school students are required to pass and understand. Most of the junior high math actually cover enough for them to understand this as well.
So... here we go.
1) I will start off saying two variables are equal:
A = B
2) Next, since I have an equality, I can do anything to one side of the equation as long as I do the same thing to both sides, and the equation remains equal. So I will multiply both sides by A, giving me:
A^2 = AB (this says "A-squared equals A times B)
3) Just for giggles and grins, let's subtract B^2 from both sides, giving me:
A^2 - B^2 = AB - B^2
4) The reason I did that is because the construct (A^2 - B^2) factors out very nicely. SO when I factor it out, I have:
( A + B ) ( A - B ) = B ( A - B)
5) It is easy to see that there is an ( A - B ) on both sides, so just cancel them out, leaving:
A + B = B
6) Since A = B, you can change it to:
2B = B
I only used relatively simple, high school level algebra, and proved that 1 = 2, or 5 = 10, or -2 = -4 -- or did it? Actually, working through the proof, you might say I proved that -2 = 4 -- but I'll leave figuring that out to the reader.
Each step uses purely logical, 100% verifiable, simple algebra. Yet it is obviously wrong. Yes, there *IS* an error. Which step it is in?
So, my friend, just because someone can weave a thread of "logical statements" does not imply their results are accurate.
*FOR* *ME*, I stated that I acknowledged the results of her work were incredible! She wrote books which have changed lives, and were so highly predictive that it is almost frightening.
As far as the philosophy she advocated, she seemed to be spot on. She is authoritative and insightful in these areas. But her own mental processes were halted because it seems she could not even conceive of the potential of valid options outside of her dichotomy. That invalidates her as a source of understanding in other areas.
BTW: I found another Buena Vista album that must have been the source of your link. It is called Buena Vista Social Club at Carnegie Hall, and was the last album before many of the bands original members passed away. I don't normally go for live performances, but this one is superior.
Thanks for that!
ones
I have 'faith' that you will always argue with what I say, and my 'faith' has been pretty solid!
See what I mean? ;-)
Let's just disagree...again?
here's a song for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rOc3qkhQ...
The Sound of Mucus...my favorite movie to hate.
And I was looking forward to a great Cuban sandwich, while sitting on my dining room chair (which I have "confident faith" in)....
Pepto Dismal time. ;;-)
they play confidently ;)
My dad used to fly to Havana with Pan Am during the Batista days of plenty. He was piloting one of the last Pan Am flights out of the capital as Castro was rolling through the gates. When he landed in Miami, they found a refugee tangled in the landing gear...
I am going to look up any downloads for this group. They certainly will augment my sandwich!
Ry Cooder was part of the production, and anything that he gets involved with gets my attention....