Posted on 04/22/2003 5:25:25 PM PDT by RJCogburn
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. — Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged
In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.
Rand was a passionate individualist. She wrote in praise of "the men of unborrowed vision," who live by the judgment of their own minds, willing to stand alone against tradition and popular opinion.
Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual: self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort.
Objectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism. It provides an intellectual foundation for objective standards of truth and value.
Upholding the use of reason to transform nature and create wealth, Objectivism honors the businessman and the banker, no less than the philosopher and artist, as creators and as benefactors of mankind.
Ayn Rand was a champion of individual rights, which protect the sovereignty of the individual as an end in himself; and of capitalism, which is the only social system that allows people to live together peaceably, by voluntary trade, as independent equals.
Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.
This isn't any different than your argument that the existence of sociopaths means there can't be natural morals, and it makes just about as much sense. You cannot force morals on someone else: norals are inbuilt restraints, you can only force your will on someone else. The existence of people with morals different from yours equally does not demonstrate that natural morals don't exist.
I am curious as to how homo or fem fascists plan to force their will on you? Do you think they plan to make you have sex with them at gunpoint?
Yes, that is correct, since I don't believe you can demonstrate the any morals are an absolutely good thing. However, it in no way refutes the argument that morals could have arisen from natural causes. It supports it. Believing in God's moral absolutes makes no difference in this regard either. Ask any Mideanite. Oh, excuse me, you can't can you? I've made up n name for your thesis than morals must automatically be "good": moral wishfulthinkingism.
So you acknowedge that animals have somewhat similar emotional and mental natures to ours? Just rather less well developed? If this is going to degenerate into a creationist thread, I'm outta here. Basically, you wish to exclude my claim that morals could have arisen in nature by claiming they don't. I'm not significantly moved from my previous position by claims not founded on reasoning from the available evidence.
T-temperment folks always dominate discussion, because they are the folk who think analyzing and arguing about evidence are useful efforts.
They seem to in politically conservative circles. Liberals seem to value emotionally driven arguments and righteous indignation over reason.
As you must know from those other treads there is no real evidence of evolution from nothing (or raw energy, or stone, or alien visitors, or fairy dust) to we'uns.
You have claims based upon supposition. So do I. Mine are informed. If you want evidence, consider the evidence for the aformentioned information's veracity.
donh, based upon a God obviated world view, how is it that musical talent, musical expression, musical order, musical appreciation, musical criticism, and musical influence has come about? What survival need does it fulfill that somehow gets programmed into our lives without a programmer?
From a political perspective (what is Ceasar's), can you give me an example of a question that would resolve differently by each method?
I don't have any such thing.
how is it that musical talent, musical expression, musical order, musical appreciation, musical criticism, and musical influence has come about? What survival need does it fulfill that somehow gets programmed into our lives without a programmer?
What is the survival value of wolves howling at the moon? What is the survival value of dolphins volunteering to drag humans and other mammals around for fun? What is the survival value of crows playing powerline tag? Humans have excess energy and excess resources when good times, such as glacial interregnums, produce new resources faster than humans can breed up to their limits. Why should it surprise you that humans, like all creatures, enjoy exercising and refining their survival capacities when survival is not a pressing issue?
And no particularly compelling evidence against it, either.
Mine are informed.
by...? Lots of shared opinions that God and his Moral absolutes exist?
From a political perspective (what is Ceasar's), can you give me an example of a question that would resolve differently by each method?
BTW, I should have said (T-types are) not necessarily the folk who have a greater appreciation for good analysis and argument.
You seem to beg the question that people with a T or F orientation (temperament, inclination) would be bound to either use the processes of thought or feeling, respectively. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I think that T-oriented folks may be more prone to objectivism (also, probably, people who have had their feelings very hurt and blame God in their hearts).
But if you ask what an example might be of one who is very T-inclined potentially having a greater inclination toward a wrong political decision than someone who is very F-inclined, I would think that the mistake of being pro-abortion might be one, especially pro-abortion for the willingly welfare-dependent. That is a conjecture that I'd hold with some confidence. One statistical fact that may support this is that by sex and age, the most pro-abort people have been found to be men in their twenties (probably not as empathetic to women in trouble, as women!).
Informed conscience should always be an overriding factor, however, no matter the psychological temperament.
For the discussion of the natural law v the moral law – which I view as the difference between the animal soul and the human soul, I’d like to offer this research into the language of the Bible:
SOUL ANATOMY
According to Jewish tradition the human soul has three parts -- nefesh, ruach, and neshama. Each of these spiritual aspects has a physical counterpart in the human body whose assigned function is to serve as the antenna that is perfectly attuned to receiving and translating spiritual signals into the language of physicality...
The Gaon explains that the neshama is above man's level. The nefesh, which is akin to the life force in animals, is beneath man. And the ruach perfectly represents man's essential spiritual level.
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. - Genesis 1:27
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] [nephesh] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so - Genesis 1:30
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath [n@shamah] of life; and man became a living [nephesh] soul.
All in whose nostrils [was] the breath [neshamah] of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], - Genesis 7:22
Nachmanides, focused on a superfluous prefix, lamed, meaning "to", in Genesis 2:7: "...and breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life and the Adam became to a living soul." The "to" Nahmanides said comes to show a change in character and "it may be that the verse is saying that it [Adam] was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was changed into another man." Another man! According to Nahmanides, the leading kabbalist commentary on the Torah, there was a man before the creation of the neshama but that hominid man was not quite human.
Onkelos summarizes it all, 400 years before the Talmud and 1,000 years before Nachmanides. The phrase nefesh chayah, a living soul, appears three times in this portion of the Torah: for aquatic animals (Gen. 1:20), for land animals (Gen. 1:24) and for humans as "to a living soul" (Gen. 2:7). In the first two instances Onkelos translates the term literally, a living soul. But for humans, because of the "to", Onkelos translates the term as "and the Adam became a speaking spirit."
The ability for spiritual communication is what makes humans different from all other animals. Not our strength, not our smarts. But our spirituality. Speech in humans is the manifest link between the physical and spiritual aspects of our existence. The neshama provides that link and urges us to feel the transcendental unity pervading all existence that is spoken of in the Shema: "Hear Israel, the Eternal our God , the Eternal is One." A transcendent unity is the mark of the Eternal. Hominids with human bodies co-existed with, and pre-dated, Adam. Ancient commentators were aware of this reality. Their discovery as fossils poses no wonder to Torah. The biblical definition of a human is an animal -- a hominid - - into which a created neshama was implanted.
Although the neshama leaves no fossil remains to prove its arrival on the stage of humanity, the effect of its creation is written loud and clear in the finds of archaeology. Writing and commerce and the appearance of large cities all date to 5000 to 6000 years ago, the time of Adam. Writing was invented to satisfy the record-keeping needs of commerce and commerce was invented to satisfy the material needs of large cities. The question remains, why did large cities emerge at this time? I propose that the spirituality of humans granted by the neshama and their desire to communicate that spirituality to others was the driving force that changed civilization from clusters of clan-sized villages to the cities of Uruk and Ur in Mesopotamia.
Hugs!
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.