King James never edited this. It got his name by being translated under his reign.
And today was a good day...
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.
You say you don't, but your post seem to indicate otherwise. What is meant by "an elegant solution"? What is that quality of "elegance", and how is it different from that same quality of art, music, or poetry? What is the source of our ability to perceive that quality?
Man made words, on man made paper?
I'd also like to take a stab at the meaning of "elegant solution." I agree with your statement that the elegant solution to our dissonance is Christ, and Him crucified.
What I'd like to do is parallel that to Einstein's view that we should make our solutions as simple as possible, but not simpler. Some may call this "economy of thought." Much can be said of what is in the Word - indeed, much has been said over the ages. But the essential part which can be made no simpler is as you said: Christ and Christ crucified.
Who do you think you are talking too? I must now ask you to show me the scientific paper that indicates that moral traits can be genetically passed on. Show me the morality gene! I have read on this and I know for a fact that what you say is wild speculation based upon atheistic presuppositons. It's really unscientific to jump to such conclusions with ZERO scientific evidence! SHOW ME THE GENE. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
If it is true that each community is correct in choosing its own morals (as you have plainly stated), then the Christian community cannot be wrong!! We are also a community and under your system, we must be right. Therefore, you are CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN MORAL CODE WHEN YOU ARGUE AGAINST MORAL ABSOLUTISM. All you can say without sacrificing logic is that you do not prefer moral absolutism, but you cannot say it is incorrect without contradicting yourself; and since you have spent so muich time arguing against it, you have already committed the fait accompli. You have lost this debate. It's over. Fini. Termino. Your moral system has been weighed in the balance and found wanting!
YOu can't logically make any moral truth claims that are outside of your own community, so I will thank you to stop using words like "universe" - you contradict yourself when you do. Any morals outside of your community ARE TRUE AND RIGHT in your system, so spare me your contradictory prattle.
...inspired by God.
Is there a test at the door of your church as to whether your beliefs are up to snuff, before you may come in and share the fellowship of the congregation?
I've scanned your posts and again you seem to think that all we can go by in life is "devastating?" proof of the scientific kind.
No, that is not accurate. My position is that you need positive evidence of the mundane tangible sort, to assert positive claims about the nature of reality persuasively. I make no claims as to the exclusionary scope of reason in human affairs.
The same way Hitler, Stalin forced their morals on their people - the force of bogus laws and the force of force. They are attempting to FORCE the Boy Scouts allow homosexuals to be members - this is tantamount to forcible sex when the perpetrator is a pedophile adult and the victim is a child. And it has happened already. Are you blind?
King James never edited this. It got his name by being translated under his reign.
And today was a good day...
I have done no such thing. I have merely asked for persuasive positive evidence for positive claims of vast scope in the realm of moral precepts.
From God's perspective, if someone denies the existence of the God who has revealed Himself to this person, what is that person?
An orthodox Jew?
Who appointed you God's private secretary? If Torquemada qualifies as a christian, so do I.
Good point. There is no morality gene.
And today was a good day...
Silly? You ridicule human nature. And you ridicule God, who made it. dohn, you have a very strange sense of humor indeed.
A broad claim. I ridiculed a thesis about the nature of reality regarding the source of moral precepts. Your assumption that that passes through to a ridicule of human nature requires that I accept as given your claims as to the source of moral precepts and is, therefore, more of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning I've grown so accustomed to in this debate.
I'll let this stand for the rest of your arguments here.
What is the survival value of a peacocks tail? What is the survival value of the lyre-tail guppies? What is the survival value of miniature poodles? What is the survival value of antlers so huge they cripple your capacity to brouse?
Beyond this, the fact that humans might utilize the gifts they are given by nature for other than the purposes nature intended is not, to my mind, much of a devastatating arguement. It does not, in any way obvious to me, demonstrate the necessity of divine intervention.
How do you know serial rapist/murderers aren't likewise doing God's work, and deserve to be elevated to sainthood, rather than eliminated by the State?
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.