About Objectivism

Objectivist Center ^ | 2/2002

[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.

[donh]

I'm trying to get you to see that there is much more in life, about which we must make very important determinations, than that which can be heaped onto a laboratory scale.

Perhaps so, but when it comes to critical determinations about what we can do to preserve the values of our culture for our children, perhaps we might occasionally peek at some evidence and try to draw rational conclusions therefrom.

A grave non-mistake, I assert.

[donh]

But from God's perspective....

I am unable to verify God's perspective in the laboratory with any precision at all. I am able to determine in the lab what is going to benefit all humans and what is not, with some approximate measure of qualitative accuracy.

[donh]

show me the morality gene.

Show me the spear-throwing gene.

[donh]

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?

Bogus laws. You mean, like the law that says homosexuals and fems have the same civil rights as everyone else? That would be the Constitution of the United States, if memory serves me. I suggest to you that it is not on the agenda of the homos and fems to force you to have sex with them. Asserting claims against the states right to punish you arbitrarily for your sexual preference is not really the same thing.

[unspun]

Approximations which obviate communication from God doesn't cut it. Eight year olds try that on their parents, too.

[unspun]

Perhaps so, but when it comes to critical determinations about what we can do to preserve the values of our culture for our children, perhaps we might occasionally peek at some evidence and try to draw rational conclusions therefrom.

It's broken record time.... I agree with that and I choose not to ignore all the evidence.

[donh]

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.

You do not own the word "universe", and my use of the word in no manner asserts a claim of any sort as to ultimate goodness, as I have just been at pains to point out. So you are railing against a claim I have not made, as you find it comfortable to argue against, and the only obvious contradiction on the table is the one between you and me as to the source of moral precepts.

[rdb3]

And you're certain that all of the people doing the translating shared the divine inspiration of the original writers, so that any words that might have ambiguous meanings were translated correctly?

Now you're changing subjects. You stated that King James did the editing (translating). He didn't.

But am I certain that there was indeed a divine inspiration? Of course I am! For it is written in 2 Peter 1:21 that "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." I already know that you reject my source for believing this, and that's quite okay. But it is the rock upon which I stand.

Since the 17th Century, the translation conducted under King James' reign has been found to be extremely accurate as it pertains to the Hebrew and Aramaic originals. Therefore, it stands to reason that an accurate translation of what was written by those who were moved by the Holy Spirit is objectively correct. ;-)

It appears that you are attempting to cast doubt. I doubt many things. But the Word isn't one of them. You can think of me as an ignorant buffoon for believing the way that I do, and all I'll respond with is a smile, well wishes to you and yours, and Praise to the LORD for He is more than Worthy.

And today was a good day...

[donh]

It's broken record time.... I agree with that and I choose not to ignore all the evidence.

They used to murder witches in Salem on the basis of "spectral evidence": the meticulously recorded dreams of children. Mists and vapor from your Medulla, or a million other Medulla's that are similarly disposed, are good evidence for psychiatrists to evaluate you with, but they are not a good thing to bring to the courtroom or the legislature.

[rdb3]

Show me the spear-throwing gene.

I can take that a number of ways. But I'll just leave it as it is.

That will be all. Be well.

And today was a good day...

[donh]

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.

Oh, really? Do you think I can't genetically select for, say, running faster? Do you think running faster has to reside in a single gene or it can't exist? Greyhounds will be very upset to hear about this.

[donh]

Approximations which obviate communication from God doesn't cut it. Eight year olds try that on their parents, too.

I have no idea what this means, or what it is reponding to.

[tacticalogic]

It appears that you are attempting to cast doubt.

I question assumptions. Does that count as "attempting to cast doubt"?

[rdb3]

I question assumptions. Does that count as "attempting to cast doubt"?

In this scenario, yes. I'm positive that many more questions will follow.

And today was a good day...

[donh]

Therefore, you are CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN MORAL CODE WHEN YOU ARGUE AGAINST MORAL ABSOLUTISM.

Quite obviously, I am not. I am contradicting your assumptions about the unquestionable source of moral precepts. You simply prefer loudly chanting spells to ward off my evil thoughts to critically arguing with me about what I have asserted.

[exmarine]

Oh, really? Do you think I can't genetically select for, say, running faster? Do you think running faster has to reside in a single gene or it can't exist? Greyhounds will be very upset to hear about this.

Physical traits are not the same as moral traits. Show me the morality gene!

[tacticalogic]

Not necessarily. Once it is established that questioning assumptions is considered hostile, then you're dealing with dogma, and any further questioning is pointless. Dogma is, by definition, immune to reason.

[exmarine]

So you are railing against a claim I have not made, as you find it comfortable to argue against, and the only obvious contradiction on the table is the one between you and me as to the source of moral precepts.

You can't argue moral precepts outside YOUR community! Christians can't be wrong in your system - we are our own community! It's too late, you have hung yourself out to dry. Who are you fooling? You spend half your life arguing against Christianity and absolute morals on FR! I could go back and retrieve numerous posts where you argued against moral absolutes - as I explained 5 times now, you can't do that in your system without self-contradiction. You lost the debate because I caught you contradicting your own system.

[exmarine]

You mean, like the law that says homosexuals and fems have the same civil rights as everyone else? That would be the Constitution of the United States, if memory serves me.

You show your ignorance of the law. First, they do have the same rights as me - they can marry anyone they want - of the opposite sex! They WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS, and they want to FORCE society to ACCEPT their perversion. Secondly, check the constitution and show me where it says there is a right to non-discrimination based on sexual preference! Your statement shows that you have signed on to the propaganda before you have objectively examined their claims! Their claims are clearly LIES.

[donh]

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!!

Sure it can, you have, as usual, chosen to refute what you'd prefer I'd have said to what I have actually said.

If I am correct about the source of moral precepts, than obviously, unlike you, I do not think they are infallible, than I accept that they could have been chosen in error, or they could have become erroneous due to changing circumstances. You would, in fact, expect this to be a rather common state of affairs that has to continuously guarded against, and could, in fact, produce utter failure of a culture. Such a failure, contrary to your oft and loudly asserted assumption, is not evidence that nature is not, in fact, the source of moral inclinations since nature, unlike your version of God, make no claims to infallibility.