Posted on 10/31/2005 10:00:31 AM PST by Ed Hudgins
Scared of Halloween By Edward Hudgins
Exective Director The Objectivist Center & Atlas Society ehudgins@objectivistcenter.org
October 31, 2005
Halloween has its origins in superstition and sadly, it invokes old and new superstitions still. Halloween, from "All Hallows Eve," was the evening before the Catholic All Saints Day and was supposed to be haunted by demons jealous of the holy day to follow. It also had roots in prehistoric Celtic mythology.
But in modern times it's developed into a fun day where children dress in ghoulish or cute costumes and canvass the neighborhood for candy while adults at masquerade parties imbibe more mature fare. Granted some juveniles get more into the tricks than the treats. And the occasional morbid-Goth youth can make it into an obsession with darkness and death, though they probably do that on the other 364 days of the year as well. But generally Halloween's about having fun.
Yet in our politically correct age this fall tradition is falling on hard times, under attack from, shall we say, rather diverse sides. Some extreme Christian groups oppose Halloween because the day represents the worship of Satan. Declares one Christian website, "Our forefathers recognized Halloween's association with the occult. The Pilgrims banned celebrating Halloween in America. The ban lasted until 1845." According to that site it was those damned Irish Catholics who raised that tradition from the dead.
On the other side of the—what to call it?—religious/political spectrum, in Canada a memo from the Toronto District School Board cautioned teachers that students from different backgrounds won't understand "the Christian, sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs as 'fun.'" It went on to state that "Halloween is a religious day of significance for Wiccans and therefore should be treated respectfully." Wiccans are witches, that is, grow-ups who dress up funny but make a show of taking primitive superstitions seriously—worshipping the Earth-goddess Gia, magic spirits they imagine populate our world and the like.
And we find Europeans reacting against encroachments of Halloween back into the Old World from whence the tradition came. Some, like Catholic theologian Giordano Frosini, complain that it's a "manifestation of neo-paganism." But most nay-sayers just don't like American-style commercialization of that day—sales of costumes and candy—which, says Frosini, "undermines our cultural identify."
If you like to have fun on this day, fine. If not, if you think it's silly, fine as well. But it's sad that a jumble of competing superstitions and sensitivities are politicizing what was once a lark of a nice autumn night.
Rand didn't promote materialism for its own sake. Her heroes insisted on a moral code in order to live among their society, and many of her villains pursued wealth without a moral code (not all, as some pursued non-material gratification).
Her moral code is not identical to the Christian code. She wrote at a time (pre-Vatican II) when the Catholic church was verging on socialism, and saw much of Christendom as contributing to the anti-individualism of the communists. However, she did single out Aquinas as one of the leading lights of the world in opposition to communistic thought. One of her best friends was also a devout Christian in the mold of frontier Christianity.
When my fellow Christians attack material pursuits per se I just ask: "Then why do you need contributions to the Church"?
You are ascribing things to Rand that she did not say. Your thought is more attributable to Nietzsche or the biodeterminists (power is all that matters). There are some advocates if reason who confine themselves to the material world and ignore consciousness, but I would argue that while they claim reason, their very ignorance of abstract forces like consciousness and society cripple their reasoning ability. They are the other side of the same coin on which one finds anti-materialists -- equally ignorant of the full nature of human culture.
Here, KING DON is our current Comptroller William Donald Schaeffer, formerly known as Mayor Schaeffer and then Gov. Schaeffer.
People call him King Don (amongst other things)! I guess cuz he's proven extremely popular and has had no problem speaking his mind and being stubborn about it.
I wonder if he knows there are Tastykakes named after him. ;D
Also, isn't it true that the Puritans banned the holiday more for it's Catholic than for it's Pagan association as the article asserts?
That is correct..
Maybe he ordered it done. 8^o
But Aguinas, whether you call it matter in motion or -- as I do -- observe that free will is not reducible to mere material cause, you don't gain anything by positing some supernatural being or force. That simply pushes the problem one step back. How can god be free, etc? You might as well save those attributes for humans since we can observe them in ourselves in any case.
I have stood up to my waist in mass graves in the Balkans. I'd suggest that it's a bit more than just a buzz-kill, it's a life-changing experience.
I'd also suggest that if it were merely kids dressing up, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. My six-year old daughter is going as a mermaid tonight, and last year, she was a princess.
I take issue with the celebration of the gruesome. I've seen all the dead people I want to see, and I don't particularly want to partake in a holiday celebrating death and all the ways it can be accomplished.
Yeah, Satanism is fun for the whole family!
Originally, All Hallows' Eve was one of the great fire festivals of Britain at the time of the Druids. In Scotland it was associated with the time when the spirits of the dead, the demons, witches, and sorcerers were usually active and propitious.Paradoxically, All Hallows' Eve was also a night when young people performed magical rituals to determine their future marriage partners. The youth of the villages carried on with much merry-making and sensual revelry, but the older people took great care to safeguard their homes from the evil spirits, witches, and demons who had exceptional power that night...
Can you guess my source here???
Question the Practice of Halloween... Or the Christian Practice of Satanism
In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates advanced argument that piety to many gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. Socrates exposed pagan esoteric sophistry.
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior. Today, “morals” are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Anyone who says I am immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner...
I just blew a gaping hole in the “moral” philosophy of Ayn Rand; one of my favorite writers.
P.S. I am not an orthodox or ecumenical atheist; there are no such things...
No, just a bit of a troll, either in love with himself or drunk. The latter probably just revealing the former.
BTW, I intended to point out that Jesus predated Plato on the futility of serving two masters. In my disgust at the rest of your post, I forgot to mention it.
So then there must be something other than matter --the non-material, or "form," as Aristotle termed it.
...you don't gain anything by positing some supernatural being or force.
You certainly do, in that you must grant the existence of the non-material as an essential aspect of reality.
That simply pushes the problem one step back.
That would be true if I was attempting to explain the essence of free will. Instead, I'm merely trying to categorize moral good and evil properly. It's a mistake to place notions of moral good and evil into the category of matter, when they are essentially spiritual terms. It's a category error like "blue love" or "square pride."
How can god be free, etc?
By his nature.
Whether whatever God wills He wills necessarily?
You might as well save those attributes for humans since we can observe them in ourselves in any case.
Free will is observable in man. Refuting it seems to violate common sense and experience. Yet materialists like Rand can offer no coherent explanation for it, if will is simply reducible to blind material forces.
The Roman Empire, emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula predate the Greek city states, the Peloponnesian Wars, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander, the Ptolemaic pharaohs, Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolution?
Amazing timeline you have there, better notify all the universities they are teaching it backwards...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
In my disgust at the rest of your post,...
Disgust? I insulted your religion and the cult that has grown up around the ghost of Ayn Rand?
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
...I forgot to mention it.
No, you are just so obsessed with baiting the religionists you have lost all objectivity; something that is common among the so-called “objectivists.”
Your obvious frustration (which I have seen manifest in others here) runs into a brick wall when confronted by a heterodox atheist like myself.
Instead of having a secular view, many fall into the category of pathetic anti-Christians. What they really want to attack is Judaism, and due to the history of anti-Judaic campaigns, they attack the Christians by proxy. [The same is true for liberal Jews; they have yet to learn their lesson from the Golden Calf and the Maccabean revolution (the Christians would add the crucifiction to that).]
You're right. I've read most of her books, and it seems to me that she ducked the problem, either deliberately or not.
Your thought is more attributable to Nietzsche or the biodeterminists (power is all that matters).
You're right again. Nietzsche faced the problem squarely, although his "solution" (power is all that matters) doesn't follow any more or less necessarily than Rand's from the false notion that the universe is reducible to matter in motion.
There are some advocates of reason who confine themselves to the material world and ignore consciousness,
True. But the problem for Rand is the nature of consciousness. Is consciousness essentially different from matter? If so, she grants the existence of the non-material. If not, then there exists no basis for morality, truth or certain knowledge.
What part of 'dress your kids as dead things and send them out to take candy from strangers' could possibly be suspect?
I have gone the corporate sponorship route - my front porch is known as the 'Gillete Snack Spot'. The kids love it...
I suspect the dentist lobby supports tooth decay. You know, job security and all that. :-)
Very logical. Another problem for the adherents of Rand is her egoism comes from Thomas Hobbes (love him or hate him), who claimed God was also material. Rand attempted to secularize that, ignoring Aristotle and the categorical logic she claimed to base her philosophy upon. It is also the same as Hobbes decrying the pagan philosophers, yet incorporating their philosophy of logic into the methodology of his philosophy.
The greatest of philosophers was Moses, from whom we get the idea that individual rights are not subject to the whims of an earthly monarch...
Did he really? Man, that's weird!
Rand attempted to secularize that, ignoring Aristotle and the categorical logic she claimed to base her philosophy upon.
Considering that she rejected most (all?) of Aristotle's fundamental teachings, it's hard to understand how she thought of herself as an Aristotelian. Aristotle was far from a materialist.
The greatest of philosophers was Moses, from whom we get the idea that individual rights are not subject to the whims of an earthly monarch...
Interestingly, even Moses didn't understand the philosophical significance of God's name which was revealed to him: "I am who am." The idea that God's nature is to exist was not fully realized until the Scholastic era, many centuries after Christ's death.
God's name has special significance regarding the inspired nature of Scripture, since it seems to be highly improbable that an unlearned nomad like Moses would make such a profound philosophical breakthrough --a breakthrough that would not be fully understood for over a thousand years into the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.