They are personal since they are her interpretations on life. We can argue whether or not reason is important to success--which I would assume a secularist like Rand would agree is based on pleasure and happiness.
Is there any consequences for not being Objectivist, Elfman2?
Elfman2: What do you think the fundamental property of Rand's ethics is that you think others who have read them have missed that makes them personal?
1) Their importance--based on the products of employing reason--is debatable. People are often valued for their non-intellectual traits, to my sagrin. 2) There is no universal or ultimate consequence to not following Objectivism. 3) The entire base of "logic" or "reasoning" is one's morals. For instance, if Luoluo's morals are to steal, then pressing an alarm as she's robbing a bank would be illogical. However, if her morals were to prevent theft, then it would be logical.
I believe our morals should be based on empiracism. The entire first part of this thread was my explanation of my God must, based on qualitative probability, exist. Even secular scientists admit there is a Creator if there isn't "multiverse." This thread dealt with the multiverse I believe.
Elfman2: That woman is describing her understanding of reality and justifies her reasoning in “The Virtues of Selfishness” Objectivist rationalizers fail themselves and their potential that's dictated by their nature and environment.
So I'll ask again, what are the consequences of being or not being an Objectivist? Isn't making excuses employing rationality to some degree? It is assauging one's desire to not do X activity because of another factor. With Christianity alone can you not make excuses to appease your conscience since you will face your sins/lack of Good Works some day.
Do you acknowledge that Objectivism aims for selfishness in this life?
Can I sum Objectivism up as follows: Using reason to make your life more pleasured?
Is there a greater purpose than selfishness?
Isn't reason just a tool to achieve whatever you value? What determines what you value?
How could you condemn Hitler for his genocide/imperialism?
Elfman2: "You have a similar structure in Christianity. Serving God is the ultimate value. Proselytizing is a primary values that results. Developing relationships and staying socially connected follows. I had a good friend in college who was a real back woods Renaissance wild man, worked construction and drank like a fish with dozens of semi-degenerate buddies on the weekend. We’d have fun together, but he had a knack of turning a conversation from rock trivia to spirituality when I least expected it. He always had an eye on helping those people spiritually. They wouldn’t have let their guard down to someone who couldn’t step into their world. He would always needle me on my atheism. He was a fairly good Christian in his own way, according to his own potential, and had no interest in or respect for Objectivism. "
I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. A Christian does not advocate "by any means necessary."
Premise: The Creator wants humans to behave opposite to their natural (evol. psych) desires.
Methodology: Primary: Personal righteousness (thoughts and actions), Secondary: Bringing others into that lifestyle and acknowledgement of Purpose.
Being controlled by a substance and having that perpetual desire separates you from God. If violates the first Commandment. A Christian cannot serve another desire than to serve God.
You don't need to be a drunkard to reach people with a dependency on chemicals. Believe me.
Elfman2: "“Productiveness” is not much if any better defined in Christianity than in Objectivism. AFAIK, Christianity doesn’t say exactly "how" one should be productive in serving God, and Objectivism doesn’t say specifically how one should serve himself as a rational man, but both have strict parameters (if you read them) that when crossed claim one has failed God or oneself respectively. "
I don't know what AFAIK means, but what you said is incorrect. Productiveness is doing what Jesus says. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and any citation of Jesus thereafter and you will see the definition.
Whereas God has an objective set of rights and wrongs--right=opposite of our "old nature"--Objectivism seems to state that anything is good as long as you use some logic and it is sustainable. Those make evolutionary/surivalistic sense, and that's all.
Elfman2: "If you still want to claim that Objectivism in connotatively hedonistic, please let me know what behavior you think is associated with the two. "
This is as I see Objectivism
Objective: Earthly happiness Methodology: Any method as long as it uses some manipulation/understanding of cause and effect (aka logic).
On war: she clearly said what I quoted. Her subsequent followers might change her opinion. Also, why would it be wrong, presuming those countries weren't a threat to the US, to leave the rulers in power? Tbe dictators are clearly using reasoning to acheive their personal ends?
As much as we disagree, I have no malice at all towards you. You must know that. Your service in the Marine Corps is simply wonderful, IMO. Thanks for the 'intel' on Chris Dunbar--I hope I can remember that name if I become an intel Officer. What was your last rank?
Debate is actually, in theory, more about a logical conclusion. Though, much to my dismay, you are right about rhetoric playing a more important role.
On Christianity: what kind of explanations? I did some cursory research on the Bible's credibility and I found them credible. I am honestly interested. My reasoning for the Bible's accuracy were: 1) The disparity of the writer's yet the absolute consistency of the message. 2) The archeological findings, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, that confirm the accuracy of translation. 3) That Jesus preaches the exact opposite of human nature and that we are uniquely given the ability/challenge to subdue our dark side. 4) The fact that no serious scholar has ever made an impact on the Bible's credibility. If there were inconsistencies/mistranslations/forgeries/etc I would think it would win a Nobel Prize to debunk them. That or at least an exalted position.
Please, explain your thoughts. As one who values honesty, would your objections be falsifiable?
Elfman2, I really enjoy discoursing with you and hope we can keep this up. I must warn you that I won't be checking this thread each and every day due to other obligations. I will continue the discussion, but as you said, we have to prioritize. I'm not leaving; I just don't have time to check it every day like I did during semester break (when we began the discussion until two weeks ago).
By way, you have a lovely wife and your daughter looks very curious about the world. Can I make a recommendation? Teach your daughter mathematics and spatial-visual skills at an early age--that will improve her future performance dramatically.
Thanks for you time, again.
Your friend,
LOC123
It looks like you’re employing the word “personal” as leading to subjective. What’s the opposite of personal? Public? But Objectivism applies to the public, not to just those who accept it.
Do you think that the law is personal? I know that there’s a claim to a creator base, but not for specific provisions. So after all, the law’s just the opinion of elected officials’ “interpretation of life”…
Aren’t there religions that arise from people’s interpretation of revelation? In the same sense, if Objectivism is Rand’s interpretation of life, it’s her interpretation of the objective reality of human life and that’s every bit as objective and non-personal as one’s interpretation of a broad revelation. So if Objectivism is personal, Christianity is personal. The revelations passed through the authors of the books before they were written.
" Is there any consequences for not being Objectivist, Elfman2? "
We’ve discussed consequences of hedonism, aggression and fascism. I’d hoped that question was put to bed. Do you want to argue their benefits to life as a rational man? Feel free to do so now, but please don’t bring this up again latter.
"1… People are often valued for their non-intellectual traits, to my sagrin. "
A race of people deficient in intelligence but strong in these other traits would die off. The negative consequences of people frequently undervaluing intelligence is actually more evidence of the non-personal validity of Objectivism. Objectivism doesn’t bend to people’s opinion of it. If you think that people’s non Objectivist opinions indicate that Objectivism is personal, then people’s non-Christian opinions indicate that Christianity is personal.
"2) There is no universal or ultimate consequence to not following Objectivism. "
I don’t see how that would make Objectivists ethics personal even if it were true, but it’s not true. The consequence is that one’s life according to our nature is not potentially maximized. That’s universal and ultimate.
" 3) The entire base of "logic" or "reasoning" is one's morals. For instance, if Luoluo's morals are to steal, then pressing an alarm as she's robbing a bank would be illogical. However, if her morals were to prevent theft, then it would be logical. "
I don’t know where to go with that. It looks like the scenario of her robbing a bank with morals against it is already in contradiction with itself.
"Even secular scientists admit there is a Creator if there isn't "multiverse." "
I very much disagree with that gross exaggeration. I’m willing to eventually go into a discussion of biogenesis/abiogenesis, but I think our discussion is splintered enough for now.
"Isn't making excuses employing rationality to some degree?"
I can’t imagine how it would be of benefit to one’s life and happiness as a rational being. Again, feel free to give an example to argue the case. Excuses contradict reality, and happiness is "a state of non-contradictory joy".
" Can I sum Objectivism up as follows: Using reason to make your life more pleasured? "
I’d excuse that definition if you hadn’t read all the things I’ve written that are in conflict with that, like Rand’s definition of happiness rather than pleasure or the hierarchy of values according to our nature as men.
" Is there a greater purpose than selfishness? "
Selfishness isn’t a purpose, it’s a behavior or principle, the opposite of altruism. In Objectivism, selfishness is doing what’s in one’s rational self interest. Many of the supporting principles to that are defined (meaning one doesn’t get to rationalize them away and be an Objectivist) Again, this is in context with Objectivism’s values, morals etc… It all snaps together in a non-contradictory way.
" Isn't reason just a tool to achieve whatever you value? What determines what you value? "
Our innate needs as humans and the objective consequences of our relationship with our environment determine our values. I’m repeating myself now.
" How could you condemn Hitler for his genocide/imperialism? "
How can you say something that so fundamentally contradicts everything that I’ve said about Objectivism? FWIW (For what it’s worth), the Catholic Church was guilty of refusing to fully condemn Hitler’s genocide, trading with him throughout the war. If anything I should consider that as evidence of the subjective personal nature of Christianity.
" A Christian does not advocate "by any means necessary." "
Neither does Objectivism. Remember the happiness definition, “Non-contradictory joy”. Rationalization is by its nature a tight little circle of reasoning that appears good on the surface, perhaps perfect in its logic except that it’s in contradiction with reality. Because man exists with reality, rationalization is the anti-thesis of the road to greater happiness.
" I don't know what AFAIK means, but what you said is incorrect. Productiveness is doing what Jesus says. "
AFAIK means “as far as I know”. Acting to promote ones happiness (as defined by Objectivism) is productiveness. Objectivism doesn’t list every detail of how that’s accomplished, no more than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John do so for Christian productiveness. Both merely list Constitutional-like principles, narrate examples through stories and leave us to free to apply them to our lives. Christianity’s definition of productiveness is no more specifically defined than that of Objectivism. You know where to read those of Objectivism it if you wish.
" Objectivism seems to state that anything is good as long as you use some logic and it is sustainable. "
If a behavior contradicts higher values it’s not good. That’s also true with Christianity as your example shows.
" Objective: Earthly happiness Methodology: Any method as long as it uses some manipulation/understanding of cause and effect "
Wrong. You’ve read happiness’s definition by Rand and you’ve read what it's limited to. You’ve read some specific higher values that Objectivism insists logically follow from that definition, and I’ve told you that deviation from them makes one a non-Objectivist. But you persist in staring at A and calling it B. You persists in wanting it to be “any method” when I’ve repeated over and over that only specific higher methods follow and are recognized by Objectivism as being moral. This may not be something that you want to recognize, but by now, there’s no excuse for ignoring it.
You claim that Objectivism’s connotatively hedonistic. I took it that you recognize Objectivism’s features that denotatively contradict hedonism, but you thought that the behavioral results are the same. If that interpretation’s wrong, please correct me. Otherwise I ask again, please give an example of a behavior associated with both. You’ll find that all of the extremes that hedonism “connotes” contradict parts of Objectivism. Non contradictory joy, remember…
" On war: she clearly said what I quoted. Her subsequent followers might change her opinion. "
She didn’t say we need to “get hit” first, unless all aggression is what you’d call getting hit. Iraq protected, promoted and supported terrorists who attacked us, people around the world and its own citizens. That doesn’t even include their failure to abide by the 1992 cease fire conditions, their attempt to kill our ex-president or their almost daily attacks on our jets over the no-fly zone. That’s all aggression. Any one of those justifies our destroying there government. Mix that with their symbolism to our enemies, their strategic geographic position among them and their WMD capabilities, and it made our attack a moral imperative according to Objectivism. Of course, dozens of Christian organizations like the Catholic Church and United Methodist Church (which I was once a member) aggressively opposed it. Objectivism does not lend itself to such subjective manipulation on important policy decisions.
" Also, why would it be wrong, presuming those countries weren't a threat to the US, to leave the rulers in power? Tbe dictators are clearly using reasoning to acheive their personal ends? "
Actually, they’re using theology to achieve their personal ends. Maybe I should hold your values responsible and consider them more evidence of Objectivism’s superiority. [smile]
I appreciate your thoughts and energy in discussing this. You have a lot of natural curiosity that should help you in whatever direction you choose. Whether our discussion on this continues or not, I think that you need to focus on eliminating statements that you make that contradict what you already know. A few times above I think that you knew that you claims of Objectivism contradicted its doctrine, but made them anyway. There are no contradictions in nature. Ayn Rand said that reasoning is the practice of non-contradictory identification. When you find what you think is a contradiction, examine your premises. As you identify commonality and draw conclusions that have withstood tests of contradiction, you can rely on them as a foundation for other conclusions. You can’t do that if you allow contradictions to go unaccounted for.
Discussions of my opinion of Christianity and abiogenesis are broad topics, and I don’t think that they are necessarily critical to resolving the question of hedonism in Objectivism. I’m happy to go over them (although I’m not going to try to disprove Christianity) but we need to resolve our current disagreement first.
I was just a Corporal in the USMC. I got there in 18 months with all meritorious promotions, but the field became impacted for further regular promotions over the next 3 years. Thinking I was really hot, I began to express my anti-authoritarianism attitude (immaturity) and didn’t work for any further meritorious promotions or buy into the responsibilities that went with them. I liked being the best at my job but non-cooperative with the politics. I wasn’t impressed with the rigidity of USMC bureaucracy, the inefficiencies of the intelligence community and the independent thinking of many of the senior NCOs and officers. It wasn’t for many years later that I understood that those problems are ubiquitous, and one just has to accept their existence and work through them.
Thanks for the kind words on the family. I’ve got to get a new photo of my son Rush if he looks like a girl. LOL! No biggie, he was often confused with a girl as an infant.
Best,
Bill