Mistaken Syllogism in Atheism: The Case Against God

[william.scherk]

What is "Ur-Randian"?

It means, in this context, thoroughly Randian, or original, proto-, primitive. See Wiktionary's entry for all the flavours.

[9thdoctor]

You mean like how humans didn't create the laws of physics or logic, and don't control those laws? And the way morality works is fundamentally implied by and due to those laws.

I would agree with that but don't see any required connection to religion. An atheist can see it that way.

Any chance you could give us a quick rundown of your understanding of the intrincist/subjectivist dichotomy? It’s got to be in one of those old Peikoff courses. Particularly as it relates to Meta-Ethics?

[curi]

You mean like how humans didn't create the laws of physics or logic, and don't control those laws? And the way morality works is fundamentally implied by and due to those laws.

I would agree with that but don't see any required connection to religion. An atheist can see it that way.

Any chance you could give us a quick rundown of your understanding of the intrincist/subjectivist dichotomy? It’s got to be in one of those old Peikoff courses. Particularly as it relates to Meta-Ethics?

Why do you want it?

[Selene]

Because it makes him horny?

[curi]

What is "Ur-Randian"?

It means, in this context, thoroughly Randian, or original, proto-, primitive. See Wiktionary's entry for all the flavours.

FYI you shouldn't call Objectivists "Randians" unless you are trying to insult them. Rand did not want it named after herself.

I'm not thoroughly Objectivist. I disagree on some things and believe my own philosophy is more consistent. An example point of disagreement is anarchism.

capitalism: the unknown ideal

One cannot call this theory [of competing governments] a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’s house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

To this I would point out that there already are competing governments and police forces in the world. Although they are geographically separated, they sometimes do come into conflict. What do then do then? They have diplomats and treaties and stuff, rather than just shooting at each other.

Rather than explaining a good enough argument (here or elsewhere in print that I'm aware of), Rand told people to take it from there. Well, I've done my best to take it from there, and I have not come to the same conclusion Rand was suggesting was correct.

[Selene]

Rand told people to take it from there. Well, I've done my best to take it from there, and I have not come to the same conclusion Rand was suggesting was correct.

The Child is so wise...

I think...yes, he must be Ayn's Golden Love Child!!

A Cult is borne!!

[william.scherk]

What is "Ur-Randian"?

It means, in this context, thoroughly Randian, or original, proto-, primitive. See Wiktionary's entry for all the flavours.

FYI you shouldn't call Objectivists "Randians" unless you are trying to insult them. Rand did not want it named after herself.

I'm not thoroughly Objectivist. I disagree on some things and believe my own philosophy is more consistent. An example point of disagreement is anarchism.

In my use, Randian is the larger term, encompassing Objectivish folk and the strictly Objectivist, and those who like you have fealty to Reason if not complete adhesion to Rand's philosophy. Your is my first complaint. I thank you for the suggestion, but I will leave the line as it stands: Elliot might be narrow and Ur-Randian and confrontational or mistaken, but naming him child is not rationally warranted.

-- you have already written an enormous amount of material elsewhere, sorted in many piles. I don't know how to make sense of it. I wonder if you have a strategy for propagating your post-Randian philosophy, one that doesn't mean confrontation. I am sure you would better your game by writing an original essay and posting it as a topic header. Rand was enormously adroit in propagating her philosophy, even on one foot. Whether you agree with it or not, it flows from simple statements.

Have you got something systematic like that in you, or do we have to go sort piles at your websites and forums?

Edited May 24, 2015 by william.scherk

[BaalChatzaf]

Morality is only regarded as logical validation by moral people. For amoral secularists, it is of no consequence.

Greg

Nonsense. Logic has to do with valid rules of inference. You can use Aristotle's rules. Boole rules or Frege's Rules..

Morality is something else and quite different from logic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[curi]

if you just want a short approximate introduction, Rand's is fine. i'd say my disagreements are confined to issues beyond the introductory.

i don't think one-size-fits-all introductions work well. i've written some, but not i'm really satisfied with the results. i think a big key for people actually learning or understanding anything is back-and-forth discussion – that goes back and forth MANY times, typically in small chunks. this is why i run a philosophy discussion forum (in my signature).

people vary. and especially interesting/intelligent people are especially diverse. a good starting point for some of them will not work very well for some others.

and people reading stuff by themselves typically leads to a lot of misunderstandings, which require communication to sort out. people so often will read a book and then have so many misconceptions about it that they never want to sort them out. this has often happened to Rand's books – and to most other authors even more. it's less of a problem with short works, but i think optimally there usually needs to be some communication to start sorting out misunderstandings VERY early.

here is one of my introductions: http://curi.us/think/

it emphasizes fallibility – people need philosophy because they WILL make mistakes and need methods of dealing with error.

[curi]

Rand was enormously adroit in propagating her philosophy, even on one foot.

I don't agree with this. I don't mean this as a criticism of Rand, but I don't think she was really that successful at propagating her philosophy. It's not a criticism because I think propagating reason is VERY VERY VERY hard, and no one else did great either, and there weren't any good ideas about how to do it that Rand ignored.

Rand has a large casual following, but I think she'd be one of the first to say that isn't worth very much.

Today, ARI is bad – but still closer to Rand's philosophy than the splits. Rand could not find even one intellectual heir who was much good. That's how much difficulty she had propagating her philosophy – in the sense of getting people to actually understand it and improve enough to live it.

Two examples of Peikoff's flaws are his mistaken ideas about voting for Democrats, and his siding against George Reisman. And Peikoff wants and expects to be treated like an authority, rather than having to argue and explain all his points. Peikoff did some good stuff while Rand was alive to help guide him, but things went downhill when he was on his own.

So if Peikoff is only borderline (a topic I'm willing to discuss in more detail), who exactly did Rand succeed at propagating her philosophy to? Me and Reisman? Is that about it? Yeah she had some broad vague influence on the culture, and that's something, but there is SOOOO much room for improvement in spreading Objectivism. There are zero people who are actually much like Rand #2, and some number pretty close to zero that understand Objectivism very well.

I have not solved this problem of propagating rational philosophy ideas either. It's something I've been working on. If I figure out a great answer, then I'd be in a better position to write introductory material and organize stuff, etc. But you need a good plan before you put a ton of effort into that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What an interesting word, propagate...

It's the same root as propaganda, however it does not mean making people agree or convincing them. It merely means exposing ideas to them.

By this standard, Rand propagated her ideas just fine.

Her books still sell well, especially her two big fiction novels.

Michael

[moralist]

Morality is only regarded as logical validation by moral people. For amoral secularists, it is of no consequence.

Greg

Nonsense. Logic has to do with valid rules of inference. You can use Aristotle's rules. Boole rules or Frege's Rules..

Bob, before you get all puffed up, realize that they did NOT create those rules... they merely discovered the preexisting order which had already been created.

Morality is something else and quite different from logic.

Logic without morality is just a bunch of stupid screeching monkeys.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Logic without morality is just a bunch of stupid screeching monkeys.

Greg

I'd say logic without real content is just form. We can state content is morality in various amounts, kinds and flavors. Knowledge is morality, directly or indirectly.

--Brant

get a grip

[curi]

What an interesting word, propagate...

It's the same root as propaganda, however it does not mean making people agree or convincing them. It merely means exposing ideas to them.

By this standard, Rand propagated her ideas just fine.

Her books still sell well, especially her two big fiction novels.

Michael

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propagate

: to make (something, such as an idea or belief) known to many people

people knowing how Objectivism works is different than being exposed to it. something pretty near 100% of disagreement with Objectivism is due to not understanding it, not knowing what it really says. and a lot of people who say they agree don't really know what it means either.

[Selene]

propagate (v.)

1560s, "to cause to multiply," from Latin propagatus, past participle of propagare "to set forward, extend, procreate" (see propagation). Intransitive sense "reproduce one's kind" is from c. 1600. Related: Propagated; propagating.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda

[prop-uh-gan-duh]

Word Origin

noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
4. Roman Catholic Church. a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions. a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.
5.Archaic. an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.
Origin of propaganda
1710-1720
1710-20; < New Latin, short for congregātiō dē propāgandā fidē congregation for propagating the faith; propāgandā, ablative singular feminine gerundive of propāgāre; see propagate
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.
Cite This Source

[moralist]

something pretty near 100% of disagreement with Objectivism is due to not understanding it, not knowing what it really says. and a lot of people who say they agree don't really know what it means either.

That's why I refrain from referencing Objectivism. I'm happy to leave that to the others here who have had real world personal experience of the major Objectivist movers and shakers.

I wasn't there.

Greg

[moralist]

Rand told people to take it from there. Well, I've done my best to take it from there, and I have not come to the same conclusion Rand was suggesting was correct.

The Child is so wise...

I think...yes, he must be Ayn's Golden Love Child!!

A Cult is borne!!

Hey, that's Brother Numpsay from "The Golden Child"... an absolutely hilarious movie. Eddie Murphy is on his game here!

Greg

[Selene]

Yes Greg...that was the humor of dubbing Mr. Elliot the child and converting him into the Golden Child and establishing a Cult.

Have you clicked on his link?

I would find it interesting how you would approach it.

A...

Go Rangers Sunday night at Madison Square Garden - Be there!!

[Brant Gaede]

people knowing how Objectivism works is different than being exposed to it. something pretty near 100% of disagreement with Objectivism is due to not understanding it, not knowing what it really says. and a lot of people who say they agree don't really know what it means either.

To start with--and you don't--Objectivism doesn't "work" at all. This does put you firmly in the Ayn Rand boat, however. She went so far as to state how dangerous and avenging it is. I think the quote is, "like reality." The congruence of the philosophy and reality was a given in her mind. She was wrong about both. She had to be for the entirety of her life was built on that idea disregarding the fact that Objectivism is cultural and intellectual to as much as a 10 - 1 ratio--something like that--and that one could take or leave the bulk (cultural) of it and that reality itself is passive in the sense a brick wall is passive and your job is to be aware that that wall will not, can not, attack you but you, the actor, should not attack it by driving your motorcycle into it.

You think Objectivism has made you powerful. In fact it has made you nothing. Instead you have tied your brain into knots. Objectivism is not a horse you ride but it can be the horse that you put on your back while staggering all over the place. Congratulations. That's quite a feat for your feet but it makes not for a standup guy. That's for your alternate reality.

Sort of contrarily one can look at Objectivism as internalized, like an intellectual feast. But there's no critical thinking on that plate. Rand already ate that and presented the rest.

--Brant

wasted words

[anthony]

Atheism: The Case Against God, in the rational morality section:

Mr. Jones wants x.

In order to obtain x, one must do y.

Therefore, Mr. Jones ought to (or should, or must) do y.

This is false. Just because you want something it does not follow that you ought to (or should or must) do what it takes to obtain it. It might be immoral to want x. Maybe you shouldn't want it, and should change your preference instead of pursuing that preference.

The syllogism is fully correct, the logic is unassailable. But where is the context?

To make an omelette, one must crack eggs. To be an engineer, one should seek a college degree.

As I understand it, the refutation of the is-ought 'problem' is all-dependent on the metaphysical question of what "is", is.

The nature of man, and his life as the standard -- iow.

The "ought" follows, as the morality elicited from reality.

Failing all that, the syllogism is open to such aberrations as:

A group or country wants the subjugation of a populace within a territory.

In order to do so, barbaric force 'must' be applied to civilians.

Therefore, it is necessary to brutalize and execute innocent people.

[moralist]

Yes Greg...that was the humor of dubbing Mr. Elliot the child and converting him into the Golden Child and establishing a Cult.

Have you clicked on his link?

I would find it interesting how you would approach it.

I just now did, Adam... and followed the prompts until it was clear where I diverged from his method.

When I have an idea, the LAST thing I do is to take it to others!

I try it out in my own life FIRST to find out for myself if it actually works in the real world by my own direct personal experience of the consequences set into motion by implementing the idea.

THEN I present my idea to others AFTER I know it works.

There.

That's my method.

His method might be ok for sedentary do-nothing theoretical intellectual stuff... but I'm much more of an active doer than a thinker.

Greg

[Selene]

Yes Greg...that was the humor of dubbing Mr. Elliot the child and converting him into the Golden Child and establishing a Cult.

Have you clicked on his link?

I would find it interesting how you would approach it.

I just now did, Adam... and followed the prompts until it was clear where I diverged from his method.

When I have an idea, the LAST thing I do is to take it to others!

I try it out in my own life FIRST to find out for myself if it actually works in the real world by my own direct personal experience of the consequences set into motion by implementing the idea.

THEN I present my idea to others AFTER I know it works.

There.

That's my method.

His method might be ok for sedentary do-nothing theoretical intellectual stuff... but I'm much more of an active doer than a thinker.

Greg

Precisely.

What is the ole aphorism ... those who can do and those that can't ______________ I have seen various inserts to that blank.

However, today I would fill it with "government worker."

If I needed someone to strike out with on a new course/wilderness, the last person on my list is going to be a current college professor, unless I know them personally.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

And you know how many? What is the ratio between those profs you know you'd put last on your list and those you know you'd put higher up?

Can you come with names? Heh, heh. (I'm bad--real bad.)

--Brant

sticking it to the man

[Selene]

And you know how many? What is the ratio between those profs you know you'd put last on your list and those you know you'd put higher up?

Can you come with names? Heh, heh. (I'm bad--real bad.)

--Brant

sticking it to the man

deftly sidesteps the stick and prevents the charging one from stumbling and hurting himself...

A...

Got your back

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

people knowing how Objectivism works is different than being exposed to it. something pretty near 100% of disagreement with Objectivism is due to not understanding it, not knowing what it really says. and a lot of people who say they agree don't really know what it means either.

. . .

You think Objectivism has made you powerful. In fact it has made you nothing. Instead you have tied your brain into knots.

Brant,

This is exactly why most fiction written by fundamentalist Objectivists sucks.

Such true-believing soul truly believes that if anyone is properly exposed to The One True Way of Objectivism, they will annul their lives, experiences and values, and joyfully embrace the mind of Rand as a replacement for their own.

(All fundamentalists of all religions and philosophies believe something similar. Even scientismists. This means circular certainty. I.e., when people understand Objectivism, they agree with it. They have to. Why? Because if they disagree, they don't understand it. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Global Warming Alarmists, fans of Lady Gaga and so on--those who are fundamentalists--all say a variation of the same thing. Round and round and round she goes...)

Fundies have become so sold they don't realize that stating something and convincing someone are different skills.

Storytelling, the idea mothership of convincing, generally eludes their grasp and comprehension. As they are the most easily convinced people on earth, they are not very good at convincing others. They are story consumers, never story creators. Except when they try and suck at it.

They can preach to their own choir in jargon with a degree of success, but rarely convince anyone else. And, of course, they blame everyone else for this failure rather than their own incompetence at critical thinking and storytelling.

Rand knew how to tell a story. Her professors were folks like Cecil B. DeMille and even some Hollywood hacks of the time, who knew more about basic storytelling than any O-Land fundy ever will. (She was also extremely good at critical thinking when she wanted to be.)

Without Rand's fiction, her ideas would be a cultural footnote. Because of her fiction, her ideas have influenced American politics and culture and business at the highest levels.

But try to get that through the thick head of a fundy on a soapbox...

btw - Our young (or maybe old) aspiring Teacher Of Others About How They Must Live Their Lives showed just how little he understood my comment about propaganda--but was still a great example of what happens when it works.

Michael