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.

[Lev]

Trying to obviate God's revealed instruction doesn't do you any more good than an eight year old simply ignorning what his father is telling him he must do and going by his own determinations instead.

You forgot that eight year olds don't stay eight year old forever.

Regards

[unspun]

You forgot that eight year olds don't stay eight year old forever.

1. No, they usually live longer, die, and face God's assessment of them.

2. The difference between the the sophistication of an adult and an eight year old is immeasurably less than that between an adult and the Creator/Savior/Judge God.

But then again, God cannot be measured, so... let's... just... not consider Him?

[betty boop]

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.

dohn, I thought we were speaking of free will, not divine intervention.

Exactly how does nature confer gifts on man? Is nature in this sense an abstraction of yours, or a real entity, capable of giving gifts to humans? Correct me if I'm wrong, but man is a part of nature. We might say that nature is merely the sum total of all its constituent parts. That is, it is a collection of things. Yet you seem to say that this collection, which is the result of something that is not itself (i.e., it is not self-created), suddenly acquires the power to determine the allocation of gifts to its constituting members? That we are to suppose that an abstraction has somehow suddenly, magically, acquired the power to act?

Is this what you expect me to believe?

[betty boop]

p.s.: I think you may be anthropomorphizing nature here, dohn. Take a closer look at your basic thought process and see if you agree.

[unspun]

dh:
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.

---

bb:
dohn, I thought we were speaking of free will, not divine intervention.

Exactly how does nature confer gifts on man? Is nature in this sense an abstraction of yours, or a real entity, capable of giving gifts to humans? Correct me if I'm wrong, but man is a part of nature. We might say that nature is merely the sum total of all its constituent parts. That is, it is a collection of things. Yet you seem to say that this collection, which is the result of something that is not itself (i.e., it is not self-created), suddenly acquires the power to determine the allocation of gifts to its constituting members? That we are to suppose that an abstraction has somehow suddenly, magically, acquired the power to act?

Is this what you expect me to believe?

---

Sigh.

It can take a-lot of reasoning indeed, to overcome our inherent impulses to respond to things we encounter and relate with via more than the self-retarded discernment, the superstition, of considering the natural only. (Even so, when we only accede to merely the skimpiest versions of anything supernatural, however that fancy could be conceived.)

Try striking everything from your thougts and language that accedes to anima.

If anyone has done so, he's got quite a scientific breakthrough on his hands. Positively evolutionary!

[unspun]

...or the numina, or all the rest of the mina's (the airport in Arkansas notwithstanding).

[tacticalogic]

(Even so, when we only accede to merely the skimpiest versions of anything supernatural, however that fancy could be conceived.)

I had one once, but the wheels fell off.

[unspun]

Yes, it's kind of an all or nothing thing, when it comes to reality. Even trikes don't go very far with one missing wheel.

[tacticalogic]

Yes. Flapdoodle is a constant.

[Alamo-Girl]

Great catch! Thanks for the heads up! donh, your post again (emphasis mine:)

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.

To follow-on betty boop’s observation, anything capable of giving gifts for an intended purpose is intelligent per se and therefore donh's statement would indicate he supports intelligent design with the designer being "nature."

And to follow-on to unspun’s observation – if donh misspoke and instead supports metaphysical naturalism – truly believes morality evolved as part of physicality – then that would make him a moral relativist by diversity in nature and would of necessity put his world-view in the column of determinism, i.e. "free will" is of no force or effect because "it was my nature to do it."

Under that world-view, anyone – whether having the "heart" of a hyena or that of a minister, indeed whether being a hyena or human - would be equally justified in their own individual moral convictions and thus, not responsible to any other individual (whether or not of the same species) for the consequences thereof. Actually, it sounds like a utopia world-view for anarchism.

[donh]

My goodness. Y'all certainly got a lot of mileage out of one little word. Just because I've referred to human capacities as "gifts", is really not a warrant to suppose I think--or that there is--a gift giver. One could, and many have, of course, made the same argument regarding the "gift" of Newtons 1st law, without which said operating, spear-chucking would a a pretty darn haphazard undertaking. Natural laws don't necessarily imply a lawgiver, just as natural gifts don't necessarily imply a giftgiver. You are antropomorphising the universe without sufficient compelling evidence to overcome the skepticism of the unpursuaded, or, at least me.

I consider this a misuse of logic sometimes called "swapping the domain of discourse" by metamathematicians, and manifested as what more traditional logicians called the "fallacy of the excluded middle".

[donh]

It can take a-lot of reasoning indeed, to overcome our inherent impulses to respond to things we encounter and relate with via more than the self-retarded discernment, the superstition, of considering the natural only.

Indeed. Whole elephant-dung loads of reasoning. Scientific, or critical reasoning is pretty much about the attributes of things that exist, such as to make it possible to test our reasoning by the observation of the reactions of things to stimuli. Or, natural, for short. About things that we cannot in any manner detect, as you suggest, any old reasoning will do--and the more the merrier.

[donh]

Because God said so.

If God told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

If God told you to slay your oldest child as a tribute to him, would you do it?

If God told you to stone to death any old woman found wondering around casting spells on people would you do it?

If God told you to slay all male Midianite babies, would you do it?

If God told you launch the moon into the earth would you do it?

[donh]

Right. But legal scholars and skeptics have looked into the veracity of the Scriptures based upon rules of evidence and have as a result believed and obeyed them.

Veracity of the scriptures based on rules of evidence? Evidence about what? The scriptures? They looked at the scriptures and determined that they were, indeed, every last pea-picken' one of them scriptures?

[unspun]

Veracity of the scriptures based on rules of evidence? Evidence about what? The scriptures? They looked at the scriptures and determined that they were, indeed, every last pea-picken' one of them scriptures?

Here, let me turn my face to the other side, so you can smite me again with your wit. ;-` That they are what they attest to be, dear man.

[donh]

In view of this 2000+ post thread, and all previous 2000+ post threads where we have had similar exchanges, what possible motive could you possibly have for arguing so vehemently about mere personal preferences? I like vanilla, you like chocolate. What's the problem?

You called me a self-contradictory liar, I asked you to put up or shut up, and this is your response? This is childishly irresponsible.

And, by the way, it is indeed a matter of personal preference. I "prefer" to live in moral communities that think reasoning to mutually advantageous co-operative ends is a good way to figure out what would be best to do and to teach. You have Higher Priorities with which I am out of sympathy due to their long and persistently disappointing track record.

[donh]

Here, let me turn my face to the other side, so you can smite me again with your wit. ;-` That they are what they attest to be, dear man.

Run out of sensible responses again, eh?

[donh]

Here, I'll post the question again, to try to help you track:

.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.

Right. But legal scholars and skeptics have looked into the veracity of the Scriptures based upon rules of evidence and have as a result believed and obeyed them.

In what manner does the supposed legal and/or logical consistency of the scriptures address spectral evidence, or the reliability of scripturally derived moral precepts. Or, really, anything anyone here has talked about up until now? Why don't you surprise me by sticking to a point long enough to defend, or, really, even just make clear, anything you've said for maybe two or three posts in a row. A few more of these off-the-wall glossilalias, and I expect you'll have run out the reservoir of goodwill with me that every deponent starts out with before he opens his yap.

[exmarine]

And, by the way, it is indeed a matter of personal preference. I "prefer" to live in moral communities that think reasoning to mutually advantageous co-operative ends is a good way to figure out what would be best to do and to teach. You have Higher Priorities with which I am out of sympathy due to their long and persistently disappointing track record.

You like vanilla, I like chocolate. I don't care about your preferences. I have my own so what's your beef? I don't care if you don't like my preferences.

[donh]

why should I care how you formed YOUR preferences?

If you don't care, than stop asking.